Men's RightsWoman marries millionaire husband after he insists on prenup, she cheats on him, gets divorced, gets the judge to throw out the prenup. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by anomanderrape

You may have heard the case of Elizabeth Petrakis, the woman who got her prenup thrown out.

Here is the full story as a reminder: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/04/n-y-prenup-battle-winner-destroyed-family-with-affair-cousin-says/

This woman meets a successful millionaire who's built his own fortune through his life's own hard work and investments in real estate.

She wants to marry, being a smart guy he naturally is wary that she could be after his money. She doesn't want to sign a prenup, but he says there is no way they are getting married with out one, so she reluctantly agrees.

Well, come several kids later, she hits the wall and wants a divorce. She claims the prenup is the reason for their marriage falling apart, even though she never was forced into it. She could have always refused the marriage and refused the prenup. But those were his conditions and she accepted it.

Well it turns out she was full of shit. She was cheating on her husband with her cousin's husband. When her cousin comes out against her with this, she has no option but to admit to it. But she still insists her affair wasn't the reason for the marriage falling apart, oh no, she still insists it was the pre-nup.

Here's the real kicker:

She tells the judge that her husband had promised her he would get rid of the prenup after they had children. That's what she says, that he made an oral agreement with her. She has no proof of this promise or this oral agreement, its just his word against hers.

Well the judge believes her, and throws out the prenup, and now she is entitled to half his money, even after she cheated on him, even after he thought he was safe by signing a prenup.

Remember guys, not even a prenuptial agreement can protect you. Marriage can and will destroy you, there is absolutely no point.

Be careful in even entering a de facto marriage before you live. In some countries, being in a LTR with someone where you move in together and live together for some time as de factos can still grant the ex-partner your assets should you break up.


[–]BaconEggsAndSleaze 541 points541 points [recovered]

Before Petrakis married Peter Petrakis in 1998, she was presented with what her lawyer called a "heavy handed" prenup that would give her $25,000 for every year that she and her husband were married, but nothing more.

How many of you would enjoy slapping on $25k a year to your current salary, just because?

It's never enough.

Petrakis now owns her own business, Divorce Prep Experts, which helps others navigate divorce proceedings.

When you love what you do, you'll never work a day in your life.

[–]rp_divorced 139 points140 points  (71 children)

I know my ex loves it because that's what I pay her every year. She works as a secretary 6 hours a day even though she's perfectly healthy and has a masters degree. There is no incentive for her to even try to do better. Now she has a boyfriend who she's already told she'll never marry because she'd have to give up my contractually obligated money on the hope that he won't leave her.

Never get married.

[–]georgeisbusting 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Completely agree. The enjoyment a women may give you is not worth having your life destroyed.

I think one of the main problems is women have no more use for us, besides resource, once they bear children. What's true in the animal kingdom is true of us. We no longer need to be around to provide them comfort or enjoyment. Their children now fill whatever void they had initially (which was the instinct to bear children). Once that happens, we're a bank account. Nothing more.

I feel horrible for this man. Everything he has ever worked for is gone. Is this the equality women want? Is it equal to take everything from your spouse or ex? Our society believes so.

If marriage ever comes up, just keep pushing her off until she finds someone else to trap, which she inevitably will if she can't get what she wants out of you. Or simply walk away. Then go eat. Go masturbate. In a few days, you won't care, and there will be such a weight lifted from you. The feeling you get when all the guilt and drama she's piled on you for not marrying her lifts and fades away is far better than any feeling you'll ever get from sex.

All you have to do is walk away. Don't agree to anything. Don't give in. And don't feel bad. She'll rope somebody else. She'll be fine. You're just the guy she has her sights set on right now.

If only this guy had listened to his instincts.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bro I will beat my dick til it scabs up after reading this. I'll go get the clap from a hooker, FUCK THAT NOISE. Damn man.

[–]Tom_The_Human 16 points17 points  (57 children)

Can't you just move countries in cases like these?

[–]rp_divorced 125 points126 points  (54 children)

Sure, if I want to abandon my kids and never see them again.

I made my bed and I'll lie in it, but the system is fucked up. I have no motivation to improve myself financially because she can come after me for more money and she has no motivation to improve herself financially because she'll get less money from me that she doesn't have to do any work for.

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (5 children)

I feel like this is the kind of thing that leads to an episode of 60 minutes.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Younger men here don't realize the heavy burden those of us who found TRP late pay:

It's not really the money. I could live under a tarp and eat wild berries and make a comeback.

It's the kids. It's really great if you have them to actually live with them

[–]rp_divorced 7 points8 points  (0 children)

exactly! I'm paying for being stupid but I have great kids and really enjoy the time I have with them.

I just hope others see this and my other comments and learn to protect and think of themselves first.

[–]alecesne 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Divorce => race to the bottom.

[–]HoundDogs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Jesus...what a fucking shit show. Part of me would just want to leave the country. Even if I had to live illegally and in poverty away from my kids...fuck that bitch.

[–]NecroticFury 1 point2 points  (1 child)

If she gets divorced a second time, does she get twice the alimony?

[–]1 TRP SupporterFred_Flintstone 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Now she has a boyfriend who she's already told she'll never marry because she'd have to give up my contractually obligated money on the hope that he won't leave her.

"What do you mean you dont want to marry me?! I know we love each other and marriage is not necessary to show that, but marriage is about so much more than money. It is about showing someone you love them and committing to them. I will leave you if you do not marry me."

"I cant marry you as i will lose the alimony from my previous marriage, but we can just be long term boyfriend and girlfriend OK?"

[–]rp_divorced 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How much of a beta bucks do you have to be to agree to that situation?!? I get a good laugh every time I see him and think about the shit he puts up with.

[–]GuitarHero07 201 points202 points  (155 children)

The major mistake here was that the pre-nup was signed only days before the wedding. As we know, the legal/political system treats women like defenseless victims with no agency so her lawyer argued that she was "coerced" into signing the prenup.

In previous prenup discussions on this subreddit, some lawyers stated that you should have the prenup signed well in advance of the wedding. Ideally, you should not even agree to marriage until the document is signed. The wedding should be scheduled after the prenup is executed. If you keep documents for when you scheduled the venue etc., this can be easily proved.

It's also a good idea to make sure that the wife has her own legal counsel. That way no one can make the argument that she was somehow duped.

[–]Endorsed Contributorzyk0s 232 points233 points  (38 children)

I love how people insist that prenups protect your assets, as long as you do it correctly. But that's like saying climbing the Everest is perfectly safe, as long as you have the right equipment and preparation. You can always analyze a case that didn't go well, and point to the things people should have done differently. What makes prenups and climbing the Everest so dangerous is precisely the fact that there are many, many ways things can go wrong, and even hired professionals get it wrong sometimes.

This millionaire wasn't an idiot, he had enough money to hire a very good lawyer, and thought he was getting very good legal advice. But it failed, and even if we can now deconstruct it and explain why it failed, that does not make prenups any less dangerous.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 32 points33 points  (30 children)

But it failed, and even if we can now deconstruct it and explain why it failed, that does not make prenups marriage any less dangerous.

You're right that prenups are dangerous though, because it provides a false sense of security. They're the illusion that marriage can ever be a safe proposition for men.

[–]MyPaynis 7 points8 points  (26 children)

Can he sue the attorney that did the prenup for him? I'm sure the attorney presented it as a document that protected his money and that didn't end up happening.

[–]Endorsed Contributorzyk0s 25 points26 points  (17 children)

You wish! Suing an attorney is harder than suing a cop who mistreated you. Courts won't allow it for at least the practical reason of avoiding an unending flow of countersuits. But even if you could find an exception, who runs the show? You'll agree it would be unwise to resolve a dispute with a plumber by challenging him to a plumbing contest.

[–]zaiguy 17 points18 points  (5 children)

That's fucked up. So the courts can and will rip up and throw out a legally binding contract at will, but don't you dare sue one of our own!

If the law isn't worth more than a scrap of paper and can be arbitrarily ignored or enforced by those in power, then we have truly entered a dark age.

[–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT 15 points16 points  (1 child)

If the law isn't worth more than a scrap of paper and can be arbitrarily ignored or enforced by those in power, then we have truly entered a dark age.

We never left it. The great tragedy is that the large-scale pretense that we somehow did.

[–]TheRiseAndFall 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Welcome to America! It's like Russia, but the crooks have a formal process you have to go through before you pay your bribe, or they brake your knee cups

[–]ThePedanticCynic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not exactly true. In Russia you're allowed to physically defend yourself from such aggression. In the US you are simply labeled a felon and barred from ever being a human being again.

The centralization and criminalization of such activities as 'fatherhood' has essentially neutralized any notion of justice.

[–]Lazlo-Red 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Prenups are a prophylactic measure; like a condom, they work most of the time but can break with tragic results. This example demonstrates how everything was done incorrectly when negotiating a prenup. As soon as the woman puts up too much resistance to the prenup, the wedding is off. PERIOD!

I advise my clients that the prenup is the starting point of divorce negotiations. Prenups are just the first line of defense. If you get married and have money, your life will revolve around the prenup and the money. I kid you not! I wrote a solid prenup and postnup for a friend and his wife, every time we hung out, she would mention the fact that she could not get to his money. She made a play, lost, and they are still together. The prenup & postnup saved his marriage, for whatever that is worth.

Any child support (departing gifts) is separate from the prenup and cannot be negotiated prior to marriage. This is where most men get screwed because it is determined later. Think about how Kevin Federline gets his bills paid – there was a solid prenup in his game and he just blew by it to a life of leisure by getting custody of the kids.

[–]2Overkillengine 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Indeed, the only sure way not to fall off a mountain is to not climb it.

I'm sure someone will menstruate out an "argument" that risk-averse behavior means one will get nowhere in life.

Those same people are welcome to bet me their life savings on a coin flip. Heads I get it all, tails, they keep what they have....for now.

Much like the above coin flip, taking risks heedlessly is fucking stupid if there is nothing to be gained from it that could be obtained without said risk to begin with.

[–]Endorsed Contributorzyk0s 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That has been every single argument that I heard from marriage, once I explained that I didn't feel like gambling with all the assets I have acquired in life so far. That has been the argument from my parents: "but son, you can't just live your life being afraid, you'll end up lonely and miserable! We too have taken a risk, we didn't know what life would bring us blah blah blah". Yes, they took a "risk" in a country and at a time where divorce was something shameful, and someone knew someone who had an aunt who divorced a known alcoholic and that was it.

I'm pretty risk averse myself, but I'd sooner quit my job and invest half of everything I own into a business venture. That's risk I can manage, that's risk that I am in control of. And if it fails and I lose everything, at least I won't have to pay dividends to that failed company for the rest of my life.

[–]donttellthefamily 13 points14 points  (0 children)

When a man is coerced he's a weak willed, pathetic individual not capable of standing up for himself. When a women is coerced she's a victim of manipulation. Shit's fucked

[–]CreateTheFuture 62 points63 points  (85 children)

The major mistake here was that the prenup.... getting married

It's getting pretty damn old reading all you "Red Pill" hamsters justifying this horrendously stupid decision time and time again.

AWALT, dummies

[–]CyricYourGod 19 points20 points  (61 children)

First off, if you want children who--statistically speaking--turn out better you should get married. Wanting children to grow up in a stable home is not crazy. Even children understand that when their parents aren't married, there is inherent instability.

Second, partnerships are about control and mutual interests. If you choose a woman who is brought up in a family where divorce is shamed and stable households are preached, they will be less inclined to get divorced even during the rough patches even if it's "for the kids". Don't date and marry party girls.

Thirdly, always get a prenup.

[–]1independentmale 22 points23 points  (10 children)

First off, if you want children who--statistically speaking--turn out better you should get married.

Bullshit. Children turn out better with a mother and father living under the same roof. A piece of paper issued by the state has nothing to do with this, and said piece of paper is worthless in terms of keeping families together. If anything, current family court laws and precedence encourages women to divorce their husbands, promising cash and prizes and a continuing income stream.

[–]politicalwave 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Doesn't that scenario you describe fall into the de facto marriage category?

[–]1independentmale 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about common law marriage, it's only valid in a few US states. In most areas you can safely live with a woman forever and not wind up automatically married.

What I'm suggesting is this: If a man is inclined to get married, he should play married instead. You can live and have and raise children together without a marriage contract and unless you're one of the unfortunate few in a common law jurisdiction, it's relatively safe.

[–]Melocatones 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, and he's pointing out that de facto and de jure marriage aren't different to the kids- so why get legally married?

[–]spectrum_92 8 points9 points  (0 children)

f you choose a woman who is brought up in a family where divorce is shamed and stable households are preached, they will be less inclined to get divorced even during the rough patches even if it's "for the kids"

I can't agree with this enough. In most of these disastrous divorce cases the women are all pretty much the same - useless, washed-up cum dumsters that run their own 'interior design' business when they're not shopping and travelling without their husband.

Now at risk of breaking the 'AWALT' mantra, regardless of whether all women are susceptible to fantasising about cheating or divorce, there are plenty of women whose families would not tolerate that sort of behaviour from them, and the risk of being socially ostracised from their own friends and family is dramatically worse than the material gains of sexual satisfaction and a hefty divorce payout.

Admittedly, it's getting harder and harder to find women from families like that in the west, but they do exist.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wanting children to grow up in a stable home is not crazy.

Being married does not make a "stable" home. As you can see by the vast number of divorces.

A stable home is made by two stable adults who know what they are doing in a relationship. Before you get into a LTR, know what you want, and know that your partner wants the same thing.

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Wrong. The major mistake here was getting married.

[–]Transmigratory 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Another thing could be to have a review clause every X years. The courts may say that a prenup Y years ago don't meet her needs (BS, I know).

The review clause ensures that you factor in things like kids.

The trick with that is to hold frame.

Of course, guys who roped in women with the whole "prenups are the only way I know you just don't want money" ethos would have an easier time doing it this way.

Two things to also consider:

  • Think extremely carefully, if you have a high standard of living the courts for some silly reason believe the divorce should leave the other party with the same standard of living they had in the marriage.

  • If she refuses to sign the prenup initially, just next her. Plate her if she comes back because resistance to sign a prenup at any stage shows this shit will happen as Mr. Millionaire found out.

[–]SPICY_BUTT_MILK 25 points26 points  (1 child)

When you love what you do, you'll never work a day in your life.

I laughed out loud at that...laughter that sort of trailed off into a grim expression.

[–]RPthrowaway123 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Since she's living off his money I doubt she'll work a day regardless...

[–]_eskimo_brothers_ 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Uh, an extra $25k would do most people a world of favors, if just to get out of debt quickly, pay off house, and actually save for retirement.

I bet she has clickbait ads out there, "I make more barely working, with this one trick, you can too!"


Oh look. Another instance of a cheating women, hot off relationships subreddit:


I know as a group we're basically split on telling the husband, but it seems to have worked out alright in this guy's favor. He owned up once he knew, even provided the husband with proof. Oh, and she gave OP (the other man) anal, never gave it to the husband. Of course right?

The only conceivable way I'd ever get married is if everything was in trusts with trustworthy lawyers and accountants so if shit hits the fan, oh that's too bad, corporations own all of my money and assets, the greedy bitch would get nothing, maybe paperwork has her on the books as a consultant to the business, she receives a yearly stipend but if she creates an emotional problem for other employees (IE: ME) she forfeits her salary. When you break it down to a business deal, wouldn't the women rather not be tied to so much legal paperwork? Make it such a pain to marry you that completely protects you, and then how much do they really need the marriage license when it no longer gives her absolute power. Just spitballin' now.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 236 points237 points  (103 children)

This happens all the time in the U.S. ... Listen boys: prenups are not some ironclad defense against getting divorce-raped. They can, and are, thrown out at the whim of the judge all the time.

The point is: don't get fucking married until the laws change. And if for some reason you decide to anyway, well you better be really really sure, and even then pray for the best. Given the right time and circumstances: AWALT. It's on you, you have been warned.

[–]ferengiprophet 49 points50 points  (91 children)

Whenever we have prenup discussions, usually a lawyer posts that this stuff doesn't happen all the time and that the best way to go about prenups is to get the female's lawyers to review the agreement as well as your own.

So, what did this guy do wrong?

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 59 points60 points  (23 children)

A judge at any point can declare a contract null and void if he/she sees grounds for it. It's all interpretation. And given our current gynocentric culture in the West, he-said/she-said situations are often gonna come down on the side of the woman. That is exactly what happened here.

There is really no ironclad protection for the man. Prenups provide some defense, but your best bet is to not get married. Not until the laws change.

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

The only way to win is not to play.

[–]ferengiprophet 4 points5 points  (19 children)

Just curious, are you a lawyer?

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 57 points58 points  (18 children)

Nope, but my father is. I've had extensive conversations with him about this topic. His words: The law is just a piece of paper, the only thing that counts is the interpretation of it.

[–]trpftw 8 points9 points  (15 children)

Can you ask your dad or (if a lawyer here can comment), that what if the prenup had language like this:

"The parties agree that no oral argument or any exception or modification can be made to this agreement and that there will be zero decision in the future to overturn this prenup unless specifically stated and agreed upon by both parties in a subsequent signed document."

How can any judge reinterpret that to void the contract? The contract is basically saying that there will be no oral agreements or exceptions.

Unless the woman can prove that she was under duress or threatened to sign (in which case, why not go to the police right then and there?). That should mean that it can never be overturned unless duress/coercion was claimed in a police report relatively soon after signing.

I cannot imagine even the most mentally disturbed judge overturning that. Even if it miraculously got overturned, a simple appeal should overturn that decision.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 13 points14 points  (4 children)

Actually, a lot of prenups are being superseded by judges' concerns over the "well-being of the children." So coercion isn't necessary to prove in many cases.

Any contract that violates other laws, or endangers people (especially vulnerable populations like children) is subject to being thrown out as null and void. At least, this is the way family courts have sometimes been interpreting it. It's kind of fucked up IMO, but family courts have different legal standards than a normal civil or bankruptcy court that would handle, e.g., a dispute between business parties.

Basically, the point is no matter how you word it, if she gets really good lawyers and can find a chink in the armor, there is the possibility it will get thrown out.

[–]trpftw 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I see. It's interesting.

But wouldn't it be as simple as, you're paying for everything for the kids ? And if your wife has a job too, shouldn't she also have to pay for the kids? I mean, if you give money to your wife to "support the kids when you're not around", shouldn't the wife also be giving money to "support the kids, when she is not around"? Assuming that both are financially stable?

I am getting this sense that a lot of prenup nightmares are because the wife is a house-wife or doesn't really have much of a job, or a really crappy part time job. Hence the court feels the need to help her out by taking money from the husband in order for her to take care of her kids. Or has it just gotten to the point where those factors aren't even factored in?

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 8 points9 points  (2 children)

But how is she gonna pay the mortgage on the 5000 square-foot McMansion she took from you in the divorce?? Lord knows the kids can't be living in a normal 1800 square-foot Craftsman house in the burbs ... that's just crazy talk. /s

While at the same time, you're living in a 500 sq ft studio efficiency apartment across the tracks in the seedy part of town ... SMH

[–]1sardinemanR 56 points57 points  (5 children)

That's usually because they're crappy lawyers, or law students that don't know what they're talking about, but want to sound like they do.

I live in a major metropolitan area and know the best divorce attorney in the region. Quite possible the best in the country/world.

He is not married. I once asked him if he ever thought of getting married. Unprompted, these were his words:

"If I ever want to get married, I will just find a woman I hate and buy her a house."

No joke.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

"If I ever want to get married, I will just find a woman I hate and buy her a house."

That's a quote from Lewis Grizzard. Other funny guys from that period, like Woody Allen and Rodney Dangerfield, had similar things to say about marriage. I particularly like this one from Rodney:

"My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met."

[–]rurpe 114 points115 points  (27 children)

He didn't do anything "wrong". The family court took the womans word over the mans word and another man got fucked by the system.

[–]ferengiprophet 30 points31 points  (22 children)

I meant in the legal sense. The fact that this guy got a prenup means that he's no slouch. He knew the dangers of getting married and tried to protect himself against them. I'm sure he had access to lawyers who guided him through the process so where did they all go wrong? How can a contract like this be thrown out so easily?

[–]Unpopular_But_Right 66 points67 points  (13 children)

He probably should have refused to proceed with wedding plans until she and her lawyers and his lawyers and witnesses all saw her sign it in triplicate with a hand on the Bible etc, so that she couldn't have a leg to stand on about an oral agreement.

And if you're a rich man and you want to marry a woman and she gives you shit about signing the prenup... don't marry her. Drop her like a hot potato, because clearly she's trouble.

[–]jcrpta 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Doesn't matter two hoots.

Her argument was "he agreed verbally we'd throw it out if/when we had kids".

Myself, I'm wondering if it would have made more sense to account for any children in the pre-nup itself. A clause, if you like, that says "this is how much you'll get if there are children". It'd be a lot harder to claim such an agreement existed when the contract plans for such an event, but IANAL.

[–]trpftw 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Yeah I think the language in the prenup may have been bad.

"The parties agree that no oral argument or any exception can be made to this agreement and that there will be zero decision in any future to overturn this prenup unless specifically stated and agreed upon by both parties."

It makes it very clear that this prenup cannot be overturned or ripped up in the future unless both parties agree. They don't have to sign it otherwise. It's not coercion. No one forced them to sign.

I'm really betting that the prenup wasn't written perfectly.

[–]alecesne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is why you make sure that both sides have a lawyer present at the time of the signing. Also its better to include a clause whereby assets are divided based on your respective income contributions. The problem here was that the signing was too close to the wedding date, and the division of assets was "disproportionate".

[–]redditarcm89 9 points9 points [recovered]

That would be considered coersion, and would lead to the prenup getting thrown out.

[–]CQC3 26 points27 points  (1 child)

You gotta love it when exercising the freedom of choice is now considered coercion. She had no choice but to marry him of course, I mean what else was she going to do?

[–]trpftw 14 points15 points  (0 children)

This is why I'm having trouble believing this case. Couldn't the case be appealed and overturned with another judge?

She had no reason to marry him. Coercion only works if there is threats, violence, or she had no choice. SHE HAD A CHOICE. I don't understand.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Its coercion when men have terms for getting married but just "Using all her assets to her best advantage" when she uses the kids to get what she wants from him.


[–]rurpe 26 points27 points  (3 children)

The family courts are stacked in the woman's favor. It was literally her word against his and the judge sided with her. This is why "do not get married" is so prevalent here.

[–]Elodrian 35 points36 points  (2 children)

No, it's her word against a signed an executed legal document and the judge still sided with her.

[–]Kid_Crimson 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Read for comprehension! Op stated that her argument was "he agreed verbally we'd throw it out if/when we had kids" and the judge sided with her.

[–]watch_ping 19 points20 points  (0 children)

He knew the dangers of getting married

No he clearly didn't. There are so many "but my girl is a unicorn" posters on here thinking that their marriage is different and they understand the risk.

The entire system is stacked against you. It's not worth the risk.

[–]RojoEscarlata 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sure he had access to lawyers who guided him through the process

The judge took the word of the woman and trough out the hole thing just because.

He could have Keanu in the devil's avocate and would still lose.

[–]putsch80 29 points29 points [recovered]

I'm one of those lawyers who usually chimes in on this stuff about prenups. I only had to read a few paragraphs of the story to tell exactly where and how he fucked up. It's right here:

She originally refused to sign it, but a few days before her wedding, she agreed to sign after her husband promised her he would do away with the prenup once the two began to have children.

When he didn't have that prenup in hand at least 60 days before the wedding, he should have called the wedding off. By allowing her to wait until the last minute, it gave credence to her story that he made some new promise (that he would destroy it after they had kids) to get her to sign it. This is just another variation of the classic mistake of springing a prenup on your spouse right before the wedding.

Also note this was back in April 2013. In the last 2.5 years, there hasn't been some flood of prenups getting invalidated. That shows that the circumstances here are probably not quite what most of the commenters on this sub are pretending them to be.

[–]ferengiprophet 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Why didn't his lawyers catch this? It's bizarre that they wouldn't have at least foreseen this possibility.

[–]putsch80 11 points11 points [recovered]

They may have. They may have told this guy, "don't rely on this prenup if she doesn't sign it at least a month before the wedding". This guy may not have told his lawyers that she had been refusing to sign it. Love makes people do stupid shit.

[–]ferengiprophet 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The court is essentially saying that this woman has no agency and rewarding her for it.

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper 14 points15 points  (1 child)

So, what did this guy do wrong?

He put a ring on it.

The only power you will ever have in a relationship is your power to walk away. There is absolutely no advantage to giving up that power.

[–]AlphaJesus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's so freeing to realize that.

In the words of Robert de Nero, " Never have anyone or anything in your life that you can't walk out on in 30 seconds or less if you see the heat coming around the corner."

I've applied that in a Red Pill perspective.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

So, what did this guy do wrong?

he was stupid enough to get married.

and then secondly, stupid enough to think a prenup was his best option (when its not)

[–]GuitarHero07 12 points13 points  (4 children)

According to the article, the agreement was signed only days before the wedding so her lawyer successfully argued that she was "forced" into signing the prenup. The prenup should be signed well in advance of the wedding and she should have her own legal counsel thorough the process.

[–]ferengiprophet 29 points30 points  (1 child)

Fucking jokes man. Next they'll say that the contract is only valid if both sides hatch a chicken's egg under a toad at 2 am under the luminescent light of a full moon.

[–]bradbrookequincy 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Except in most states its very clear about what makes a prenup invalid. This idiot committed the number one mistake in prenup land - getting it signed at the last minute.

[–]ARedSchoolofThought 12 points12 points [recovered]

Depending on the country, this guy should of hid his assets inside a trust before marriage. Then after the impending divorce, cut her a check for 1/2 his actual worth, not his trusts worth. Like "here's $5k, now get out of my life."

[–]Brave_Horatius 15 points16 points  (2 children)

This. This is how the real old money does it. The dead beat son gets a cheque monthly instead of a lump sum, gets the use of houses cars etc that are wholly owned by the Trust.

That way when he inevitably falls in love with a skank in a Atlantic City she doesn't get a payday.

[–]Planner_Hammish 2 points3 points  (1 child)

A trust isn't ironclad either. The court could impute the valuue if you are the only one on the board of directors or whatever the case may be. I.e. if you have a degree of control over the money.

[–]RealHumanHere 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This might sound stupid and sure is, but what if you put your milions before getting married on untraceable bitcoins? You can literally divide your wealth put them in many encrypted hard drives that you hide/keep around the world and no one could know where.

[–]Captain_Unremarkable 4 points5 points  (3 children)

This happens all the time in the U.S.

While my intuition tells me this is true, I'd be curious to see the actual numbers of % of prenups that are thrown out due to coercion.

[–][deleted] 120 points121 points  (35 children)

And women wonder why men are opting out of marriage

[–]GoldPisseR 103 points103 points [recovered]

They aren't.Thats the big fucking problem.

Because every woman no matter how big a slut will choose a stable rich guy with zero personality for marriage over a chad.

She'll of course keep fucking him on the side, but thats a diff point.

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (14 children)

Not all men are, but there is clearly a movement for men to avoid marriage. Marriage rates are declining and there aren't enough stable wealth guys suckers to go around.

Whether its the red pill men or the MGTOW movement. The men-opting out approach is real and reflective of declining marriage rates. If there are guys out there who still marry despite the increasing evidence of its increasing toxicity that is on them. There is no excuse given the preponderance of data and anecdotal stories about men getting screwed over.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (12 children)

Even if that wasn't the case, most married men are miserable. No sex and can't even wank in peace. Maybe 1/10 are legitimately happy and not just delusional.

[–]trpftw 8 points9 points  (11 children)

I don't quite understand this. Are women not interested in sex? Do they usually have lower sex drives? And if so, why do they go and fuck chad and cheat on their marriage? Are they not interested in stable families and raising children in a stable family?

None of this makes any sense to me.

[–]ColonelMitchell 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Often times females are more attracted to the "feels" you give them. Once you're married the husband seems like old, boring news to the woman. They want something fresh, something exciting and unknown. This effect is multiplied exponentially if the guy becomes out of shape as time passes. And no, they're not interested in stability. Because feelz>realz(reality).

[–]trpftw 3 points4 points  (1 child)

So what I'm wondering now is (this was something I think Neil Straus said), that you still have to work hard to KEEP the woman you're with during a marriage or LTR. Like you still have to make moves. If you get comfortable and let yourself go (get fat) or start neglecting to keep giving them "the feelz", then they lose feelings for you. That apparently you have to keep being a player even in your LTR.

So in that kind of situation, do you think if you stayed very alpha and kept things exciting, perhaps she wouldn't ever think about leaving etc. I think a lot of guys pretty much turn into their college/high-school-selves after they think they "got it in the bag" in a LTR, and the neglect starts adding up and the lack of emotional support etc. starts making the girl talk to other girls, and the other girls tell her to "get out more" or "meet new people" and that's when it all goes downhill.

What do you think of that?

So wouldn't it be possible to keep a wife or LTR if you're the kind of person who doesn't "let go" and become a slob/unattentive? I really really believe that a lot of guys I know, will put on a show and act really good for a while, but then they'll resort to being complete assholes who don't care about anyone but themselves if they get "comfortable with someone".

It's like roommates. At first, the roommate is on his best behavior, he acts all nice and does clean things. Then he turns into a slob once he gets comfortable with you, brings out his bad habits, and gets annoyed at things you do that shouldn't annoy anyone, and starts becoming this toxic person that you don't want to ever live with again.

[–]ColonelMitchell 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There's a balance to be had. You have to show her that you'll love her and take care of her, but you also have to do your own thing. Yknow there's a reason why red pill doesn't suggest getting married. Because it's hard finding that balance. Your best bet is finding a woman that is less hard to keep commited.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Yes, they have lower sex drives, and that sex drive is more responsive rather than initiating. That is, if the right guy comes and gives them tingles, she wants sex, but it is driven from external circumstances rather than internally. Testosterone drives sex drive in both sexes, and it is 12-17x higher in men.

This is of evolutionary importance, since sex itself is enjoyed by both sexes (actually, often more by the woman), but having a higher sex drive means that men have to pay something extra to coax the gender with the lower drive to give it up. If they had equal drives, there would be no need for 'sweeteners' like commitment. Women's greater power in sexual relationships stems precisely from their lower sex drive. This is why married women can refuse sex until some other 'favours' are supplied, like repainting a room or mowing the lawn.

As for not being interested in stable families, a consequence of being driven by feelings more than logic is a deficiency is long-term thinking, of seeing consequences for actions. She doesn't know what she will feel in the future, so can't plan for it.

[–]trpftw 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Very fucked up.

That also probably explains why women don't initiate anything including "asking out" people being traditionally done by men.

Seems like they are using sex as a bargaining chip in negotiations. But what happens if a guy himself has low sex drive, and the woman has much more. I wonder if that leads to a happier relationship.

[–]through_a_ways 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wonder if that leads to a happier relationship.

It would be an inadvertent form of natural dread.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The only reason why women are interested in "stability" is because "stability" = provisions. That meaning the kids are being fed, she can buy some basic bitch Michael Kors gear, and have the luxury of going on vacations now and then.

Women can just transfer that "stability" from a husband directly into their bank account and kick the guy out of his own family's home though. Look at all the feminist propaganda out there lately that teaches people that divorced households can be perfectly healthy and how dads are unnecessary.

I think TRP is living proof that a broken nuclear family will result in a whole generation lost. Daughters wind up in abusive relationships, think that flashing their tits is social activism, and are more likely to just make general poor life decisions. Sons who grow up without a father are way more likely to become involved in gang activity if they live in a bad area, become involved in some illegal activity/get arrested/wind up in jail, or they just become some soft body fuck boy who gets pushed around and doesn't know how to stand up for himself.

Obviously, this isn't always the case.. And sometimes people from really good families wind up fucking up; but I live in a working class town and grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. I work in an upper middle class typical suburban town and the difference is night and day.

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points  (3 children)

I've seen two friends post some shit mocking modern marriage, with an image of a wife cheating on her husband and walking away with everything. The 20 year old dudes are waking up, I promise.

[–]woofitout 14 points15 points  (1 child)

I've seen two friends post some shit mocking modern marriage, with an image of a wife cheating on her husband and walking away with everything. The 20 year old dudes are waking up, I promise.

Posting funny images online really doesn't mean shit. Everyone does that, including the people that the image makes fun of. If those 20 year olds actually stick to the not getting married idea, then props to them, but IMO there's zero correlation between posting one of those images and actually following through with not getting married when you've got some "unicorn" begging you to do so.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Posting funny images online really doesn't mean shit. Everyone does that, including the people that the image makes fun of

The subs "nice guys" and "just neck beard things" are perfect examples. You know those places are flooded with clueless little beta blue pill dorks who think they're above that…

[–]woofitout 7 points8 points  (0 children)

All kinds are getting married.

I've got a "main" group of friends where the vast majority are not married, despite being in very long term relationships. There are a few engagements and "promise rings," but no wedding dates set. Basically the guys succumbing to the woman's pressure to "get married," but seem to be pushing it off as long as possible. Some smarts there.

I've also recently started hanging out with a "new" group of friends. I've known two of these guys for years, and have met most others here and there. Even though the groups of friends are all around the same age, same background (everyone is from Eastern Europe), very similar social/economical status, etc., everyone in the second group is either recently married, or about to be.

The guy I've known longest in the second group is not your typical macho alpha, but he's got great game, was a successful (local) DJ at several night clubs, very social, tons of friends, high SMV, etc. Has been with the same girl for 6-7 years now and is getting hitched in a week. One of the other guys (whom I just met for the first time a few days ago) is very clearly alpha, and he's getting married in a few weeks, too.

Everyone in the two groups is from 24 to 31 years old, and pretty much everyone is fully onboard the marriage train. I can only guess how many of these couples will be divorced within five years.

[–]rp_divorced 15 points16 points  (13 children)

there's always a man willing to marry these women. The only change is that these women are having to lower their standards to lock down their beta bucks. Which we all know will lead to even more divorces down the road.

[–]Tarnsman4Life 22 points23 points  (11 children)

It takes self respect and strength to say you'd rather be alone than settle for an Alphas left overs, something most men simply do not have. I wouldn't even say its 80%, I would say it is closer to 90 or 95% of people are so terrified of "being alone" that they would marry a woman who has seen more cock than the piss trough at Wrigley field during the 7th inning stretch.

I don't have firm numbers, but if you are an Alpha and at the top of your SMV what percentage of American women are really suitable/worth the risk of getting married and knocking up?

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (3 children)

Once you're on the other side. When you finally experience what it's like to be a girl's Chad, the fact that they'll do almost anything sexually, you can never look at women the same way.

I'm not even attractive and I've had a few of those experiences; I can only imagine what it's like for the tall, broad shouldered, deep voiced, classically handsome men.

Personally I'd rather die alone, than settle for a woman that spent her 20s swallowing Chad's load.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Ain't that the truth.

Same boat here; I am far from an attractive man. However, once you have the experience of being a girls chad and spinning plates there is no way to go back (and why would anyone want to).

Count me in on the die alone crowd, I would never settle for a woman who has seen more traffic than a major highway during rush hour. AWALT

[–]rp_divorced 18 points19 points  (4 children)

Every single American woman will turn on you given the right circumstances. They all know it's an easy payday with virtually zero risk.

[–]Tarnsman4Life 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Always, ALWAYS AWALT yes any woman will turn on you if you lose frame. But seriously, women who are actually worth that risk, who have not ridden the CC till they fell off, who don't have deep seeded psychological issues and have no problem being the traditional wife. We are talking about what..1 in 100 American women? Maybe 1 in 50?

The pool seems extremely small these days of women who are worth the risk.

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

But seriously, women who are actually worth that risk, who have not ridden the CC till they fell off, who don't have deep seeded psychological issues and have no problem being the traditional wife. We are talking about what..1 in 100 American women? Maybe 1 in 50?

You need to add several zeroes, my friend. It's not a new problem, but it's gotten far worse.

"I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all." — King Solomon, circa 950 B.C.

[–]dicklord_airplane 174 points175 points  (16 children)

a similar thing happened to my good buddy when he was 27. he got married after dating a girl for 2 years, and it was largely because they both came from traditional catholic families. they had to get married before they moved in together or else their families would have made life hell for them.

he brought a shit load more assets to the marriage because he had already graduated college and had a good professional career going. before he met her, he bought a nice townhome for cheap right after the economic crash in 2008, and the place shot up in value. (real estate is a great investment if you're patient and wait for an economic scare, by the way). after they got married, he bought her a car, paid for her full-time college tuition so that she could finish her bachelors, and also paid the bills and mortgage. he paid for her entire life, basically. he was a pretty darn good catch in terms of financial stability.

she started cheating on him after about 2 years of marriage with a guy in her college courses. she wanted to come clean but was too much of a coward to tell him, so she started leaving her phone out so that he would eventually see that she was getting messages from other guys.

they had a fairly amicable break up considering everything. when they got divorced, he was crushed and didn't want to fight over anything so he just agreed to split their net assets 60% for him, 40% for her including the profits from the townhome that he sold when they decided to divorce. this means that she got a huuuuuuge cash payout because she brought nothing to the marriage besides a bit of debt.

TLDR: she got free tuition, a free car, free room and board, and was entitled to a huge portion of the sale of a home that she did not pay a single cent into. she got all of this by cheating in her marriage.

Epilogue: after all of this, he moved in with me and decided to quit his professional career as an engineer and become a snowboard instructor. he's got a lot of confidence and game, and he's been using and abusing women ever since. i witnessed an upstanding man who would make a fine husband and father get chewed up by marriage and transformed into an uncaring player who seems to take pleasure in playing with girl's feelings. the traditional path for men turned out to be a trap for him. i went through a similar transformation, but at least i didn't get married and i wasn't so badly hurt that i formed sadistic feelings towards women.

this story is a microcosm of western culture's trajectory. it's broken.

[–]_whistler 161 points162 points  (1 child)

Epilogue: after all of this, he moved in with me and decided to quit his professional career as an engineer and become a snowboard instructor. he's got a lot of confidence and game, and he's been using and abusing women ever since. i witnessed an upstanding man who would make a fine husband and father get chewed up by marriage and transformed into an uncaring player who seems to take pleasure in playing with girl's feelings. the traditional path for men turned out to be a trap for him.

Where have all the good men gone...

[–]Elodrian 6 points7 points  (4 children)

How do Catholics feel about pre-nups? Has Rome ruled on that topic?

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Well I don't have an answer for you, but ideally Catholics are not supposed to get divorced, so I would assume the church says that there is no need for a prenup.

[–]ioncloud9 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Former Catholic here. Catholics can never be divorced in the church's eyes, so getting a pre-nup is both pointless and a terrible way to start off the "lifelong" marriage. That said, I've seen plenty of very conservative Catholic marriages split. They legally divorce but the church still considers them married so they basically have to be celibate for the rest of their lives to avoid being in sin, which pretty much none of them do.

[–]spectrum_92 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well the strange thing about pre-nups from a Catholic perspective is that on the one hand, they appear to set the marriage up on shaky foundations, implying that one partner doesn't trust the other. But on the other hand, considering divorce is totally unacceptable according to Catholic doctrine, it shouldn't actually be a major problem as - ideally - divorce is not ever going to occur anyway.

[–]Trengingigan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Italian Catholic here (well, ex-catholic). There is simply no divorce in the Catholic Church, so no pre-nups. If both partners express a conscious and free consent to the marriage, the sacrament is valid and indissoluble until death. If a religious court verifies that the consent of one or both spouses was defective in some way (not sincere, not free, or not mindful of all its implications), the marriage is declared null, that is, it never really happened, the couple was never married.

Everything else (pre-nups, economic aspects of the separation etc.) are just things the Church is not concerned with and are thus handled by the civil courts.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana 2 points3 points  (0 children)

People generally do what they are incentivized to do.

Work hard, get married, build a career, be faithful to one woman, and then pay through the nose in a divorce?

Or drop out and pump-and-dump hot snowboard chicks?

[–]GoldPisseR 43 points44 points  (7 children)

Its just unfathomable for me why rich fucking guys would bet half their shit on a modern whore.Downright suicidal

Also surreal that no matter how accomplished and established some guys are ,they just lose their senses when a woman comes along

[–]draketton 34 points35 points  (1 child)

Self-made rich people spend so much time building their career that they have no opportunity to learn from experience how women treat men. Without an instruction manual like TRP that's a bad road to go down.

[–]Tarnsman4Life 19 points20 points  (2 children)

This is why Charlie Sheen went with hookers; he could hire a cook, hire a maid, get arm candy celeb dates for Hollywood stuff and he decided to hire women for sex to avoid exactly this situation.

It is not worth the risk anymore; even if you don't put a ring on her finger, some gold digging bitch comes out with woodworks with false rapes claims ala Kobe. Looks like some random bar pussy is accusing my favorite athlete Patrick Kane of rape. I am sure he will be found not guilty but will have to settle out of court just to shut the chick up.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

he has two ex wife's that he pays for though

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A lot of those rich guys are the guys who spent their whole lives playing by the book and doing the right thing; like Tyler Durden before his apartment burned.

[–]OrpheusV 39 points40 points  (10 children)

So basically a prenup needs these to be effective, and even then the judge can just go LOL NOPE and throw it out?:

  • A clause that this is not subject to change and legally binding. Oral agreements cannot override this document in any way shape or form unless done in the presence of a public notary and done in writing as well.
  • A clause for adultery immediately denying the cheating party any benefits during the divorce, and is 100% irrevocable.
  • Detailing making it absolutely 10000% clear what goes where if the relationship fails. Make it clear that whatever was brought into the relationship by each party is their own property. If someone brought pots and pans into the relationship, they're clear to leave with those items.
  • Clauses making it clear what is expected of each party in the relationship, and basic clarification on custody of children(if any), where assets go, etc?

Shit, even that isn't enough? What the fuck.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 29 points30 points  (9 children)

One of the clauses of a proper prenup is that the division is seemingly fair. Which is the most bullshit, subjective metric you could possibly imagine. A judge can decide it's not fair because he has the gynocentric view that she is entitled to money, no matter what, and simply chuck the prenup out.

[–]OrpheusV 3 points4 points  (6 children)

No clue if this is so, but can those bullshit rulings get appealed under a different judge? Unfortunately not knowledgeable under how civil cases work.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It can but im pretty sure it basically just gets back round to the same judge/the judges uphold each others rulings often times. Also most guys cant afford to appeal

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Family law is nothing more than a scam industry engineered over several decades to steal money and destroy families. I don't think this is a misandry thing, after all, you do hear of the occasional man getting paid alimony by the rich wife. I believe it's just business - they basically just screw over whoever has the most income (which 9 times out of 10 is the man), in hopes the man will keep "appealing" aka pumping more money into their criminal legal (by their own definitions) but disgustingly immoral enterprise.

Think about it, who writes family laws? Family law attorneys.
Who enforces family laws? Family law attorneys "elected" as judges.
Who profits from family laws? Family law attorneys.
Seeing a trend here?

We talk a lot here about "until laws change" but think about what that would take to happen. We would have to get not one, not a few, but the majority of local, state, and federal representatives to change the system for us. So who are these representatives? You guessed it: attorneys. In fact, IANAL but I'm pretty sure you have to be a family law attorney just to RUN for family court judge, and an attorney just to RUN for state office, meaning that no matter who we campaign for/against, we'll always end up with somebody who we're asking to change the system against their own self interests.

The only way I can see to defeat this system is to starve it to death. Or, in other words, don't get married, ever. Don't let your friends get married. Don't let your kids get married. Boycott the system altogether. Expose women who beg for marriage as the scam artists they are.

[–]grachuss 11 points12 points  (3 children)

I started buying 4 unit apartment buildings a few years ago. The next 12 months should bring me buildings #5 and 6. Yet my 28 year old grocery store cashier gf can't figure out why I don't want to get married.

I tell her why and she goes ballistic. I'm not budging however. I've worked too damn hard to get to where I am, and I'm not about to be taken for a ride.

[–]nefuratios 4 points4 points [recovered]

Is your gf super hot and is there any reason you're not dating someone on your level?

[–]grachuss 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes I live in a tiny town with 800 people. She is the best I can do at the moment.

[–]fucks-like-a-tiger 21 points22 points  (9 children)

This is only one of the many reasons men with money don't get married. There is no such thing as an ironclad pre-nup. Even if it's not thrown out, the defense costs can be staggering. Attorneys bill by the hour. Avoid the risk. Fuck marriage.

[–]grass_cutter 3 points4 points  (3 children)

The ironclad way is to literally hide money in some offshore account far away from government (or spousal) knowledge whatsoever.

[–]bradbrookequincy 6 points7 points  (1 child)

This sounds good but is not practical. All international bank accts need declared on your tax forms and lots of logistical stuff. But the biggest issue is your money sits idly buy and makes no investment returns. My diversified stocks and real estate have doubled in value in 5 years. In offshore accts no growth of assets which is how you grow wealth over your lifetime.

[–]grass_cutter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have zero doubt there are offshore investment accounts. I mean honestly, what the fuck do you think Mitt Romney is doing? I'm not dumb enough to get married, so I don't personally have to worry about it.

and re-read my post. You're illegally 'hiding' it from the government and taxes. So yes the IRS "says" to put it down.

[–]Patranus 34 points35 points  (27 children)

I am sorry, but if this happened to me (as a business owner) I think I would literally go postal on her. There are few things that would make me break and this is probably one of them.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (1 child)

Honestly anyone stealing my money, as an ex-junkie hits a spot of me that is irrational and murderous. You don't fuck with my money. I didn't want to work to begin with, my hard-earned money??, oh fuck that.

[–]sofcknwrong 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As her husband AND an ex-junkie, if she 'disappears', you'll be lucky if you ever see daylight again.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (11 children)

If more men went postal females would think twice before trying to fuck them over.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 9 points10 points  (3 children)

It's not the women fucking them over. It's the government doing it on the woman's behalf.

Go postal on the judges rather than the women. Change will happen a lot faster that way.

[–]redzorp 25 points26 points  (5 children)

I doubt it. Over the decades more than enough men have in fact gone postal and, if anything, those incidents were used as a collective excuse for even more draconian feminist laws (violence against women act, etc>)

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (4 children)

Yeah you are right. No Marriage No kids is punishment enough for these succubus.

[–]jcrpta 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Oh, they'll get the kids all right. Same way women have always got the kids. "Forget" to take the pill and/or go fuck Chad without protection while making sure to use protection with Dave the Provider.

"Oh, I'm pregnant! Damn, condom must have failed!"

(meanwhile, Dave is thinking to himself "strange, I check it every time.....")

[–]ChadThundercockII 2 points3 points  (2 children)

The condoms companies say it is 99% protection against STDs and most of them assure you that their shit is unbreakable. I trust them but I don't trust women.

[–]Bloody_Anal_Leakage 7 points7 points [recovered]

Don't go postal on the women, they're simply looking out for their self-interests at the expense of others. Its in their nature.

Lynch the judges that think upholding this with the force of law is okay.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (5 children)

I would prefer to spend the remaining millions to make life a living hell for her until the day she died. I would rather burn the money just so she couldn't have it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I'd just leave the country. easy

[–]musclebound92 13 points14 points  (7 children)

Why the fuck do judges side with women no matter what. Are they so controlled by their dicks that they can't say no to a woman.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Why the fuck do judges side with women no matter what.

Women control 55% of suffrage. All judges are either elected or appointed by those who are elected.

[–]chostax- 3 points4 points  (3 children)

You're implying all judges are males, although I'm sure the majority are.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Instead of a marriage with prenup, simply do not get married.

Even if the laws change in your favour: laws are fickle. Society will pull the rug from under you and redefine the law of marriage to be whatever it wants it to mean, LATER. Bait and switch.

The marriage contract you sign today is not the marriage contract that will be enforced against you in 5,10,20,30 years time. We have learned this. This has happened already.

If everyone gets a prenup, they could simply make prenups illegal. Simple as that. And boom, instantly you've got zero protection. Ironclad protection? Oh hell no, they just made it illegal.

The laws of marriage have already changed once. Don't think that even if it looks like a good deal now, it always will be. And right now it looks like a terrible deal.

IF men stop marrying and IF the deal for men improves, this will be made to only apply to new marriages. Feminists will see to this. "Fuck... we need to get married... but men won't... ok, let's make new marriages slightly better for the men, but without improving the deal for those suckers who already signed".

Read TRP. Look at how men are treated. Look how much society cares about you and your money, resources, rights. Look at the past as the best indication of the future, and act accordingly.

[–]ShitfacedBatman 27 points27 points [recovered]

I watched the movie Divorce Corp. Everybody needs to see that movie. US Family Courts are anarchy. If you really want to win, buy the shit out of the judge. Seriously: buy the judge. Bribes, death threats, whatever you gotta do. Or get married in a different country.

If you attempt a cohabitation situation, get out of the commonlaw trap by making it look like she's a renter at your house. Retrofit the paperwork if you have to and LIE YOUR ASS OFF IN FAMILY COURT as necessary. Tilt the fuck out of the playing field.

[–]ChadThundercockII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thia right here. If the law is crooked, bend the shit out of it and lie your teeth out.

[–]shinslap 5 points6 points  (1 child)

That's the good thing about being poor, I know my wife is with me not for money

[–]Philhelm 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I'm really surprised that these judges and divorce attorneys don't wind up dead more often. It honestly puzzles me.

[–]1London-Bananas 5 points6 points  (1 child)

And even here on TRP there are people defending marriage in this fucking thread

[–]spicedncoke 15 points15 points [recovered]

I actually read the article. Here's where the husband cocked up:

"Before Petrakis married Peter Petrakis in 1998, she was presented with what her lawyer called a "heavy handed" prenup that would give her $25,000 for every year that she and her husband were married, but nothing more. She originally refused to sign it, but a few days before her wedding, she agreed to sign after her husband promised her he would do away with the prenup once the two began to have children. He did not destroy the prenup, even after they had children, according to his estranged wife."

So according to the article:

  • He put the ring on it

  • They set a wedding date.

  • He then throws a pre-nup on her, she refuses to sign.

  • Wedding date gets closer, she then agrees to pre-nup on condition hubby drops it after kids.

I agree that she's being a greedy bitch for basically saying $25k/year is not enough. But, c'mon, anyone with half a brain would realize that the pre-nup would not hold up if she signed it 2 days before the wedding with a date already set.

If he didn't set a wedding date, she couldn't claim duress. Simple. But yea, if you're gonna marry, marry up in financial resources. She can't hit you for divorce rape and can't use you a BB.

[–]Elodrian 4 points5 points  (5 children)

But, c'mon, anyone with half a brain would realize that the pre-nup would not hold up if she signed it 2 days before the wedding with a date already set.

If this scenario were playing out last month I'd agree with you. What did the relevant case law look like twenty years ago?

[–]cptspiffy 2 points3 points  (5 children)

If he didn't set a wedding date, she couldn't claim duress. Simple. But yea, if you're gonna marry, marry up in financial resources. She can't hit you for divorce rape and can't use you a BB.

I'd love to see some case law on this. My wife makes more than I do, but I'm not confident that that'd save my bacon if we ever went to court.

[–]HumanityInPeril 17 points18 points  (10 children)

Rising 2L here, this shit happens all the time with ANY type of contract. However, this greedy whore made off like a bandit. Hopefully the state Supreme Court (or whatever they call that court level in NY they are weird) will pick up the case and reverse it. I'd also like to note I'm married and it is the biggest mistake of my life. We have two amazeballs kids (as they are my offspring... I did paternity tests) and I only stay with the shrew until post law school when I can divorce her and still be able to see my girls every day. Of course the whore will rape me financially for the next X amount of time with alimony but at least I will get to be with my girls and help them to not be a stupid slut like their mother.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Why not divorce during law school so she can keep half your negative net worth.

[–]grass_cutter 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Maybe he wants to handle his own case lol.

Just kidding no one is doing that shit fresh outta law school. He'll be raped by the courts and lawyers like everyone else. Talk about trial by fire.

[–]Justathrowawayo 7 points7 points [recovered]

It's crazy how first year law students seemingly know more than twenty year vets and s-m experts.

Listen young pup, a lawyer's credibility is his currency. Spend it at your own risk. You have no idea what you're talking about. I know it plays to what many of the people here want to hear, but contracts being thrown out is an extremely rare occurrence. Parts of contracts? Less rare. I bet you didn't even read the article.

tl;dr: avoid internet "lawyers" and "law students" and their opinions, especially on anonymous forums.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (1 child)

This is why the world needs deadpool and assassins.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (21 children)

If you want to have kids, how are you supposed to do it while protecting yourself in the US? I fully believe AWALT and prenups don't mean shit anymore... so even marrying the perfect LTR red pill girl you still risk getting divorce raped. Seems impossible to have children without taking a huge risk

[–][deleted] 6 points6 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (7 children)

Fair enough, but you still have no legal control over the children at that point. The mother could take them away and get child support from you overnight if she wished - when I say have kids I meant have children that will 1) have your last name and 2) you are there to be a father figure to them and raise them up right to make sure they don't get sucked into the blue pill mindset taught by single mothers.

This is, of course, assuming you can convince a GF to have your children which I doubt is an easy task. All of them will want to get married first, will be some serious shit tests to pass to achieve this

[–]netgrey 4 points4 points [recovered]

You have no legal control anyway even if you are married.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Maybe not equal control but certainly more control than having none at all, fathers still win custody etc. Its rare but it still happens

[–]cptspiffy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not an ideal situation, but you can assert your paternal rights within 6 months of the birth, even in a maternal state. This will make a huge difference should any custody issues arise down the road, married or not. In my state (Nevada), this costs about $20.

[–]BlackHeart89 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For some, its worth the risk. I have no problem with paying child support. But I can't stand behind paying alimony. That shit is retarded. Especially considering that most women work. Married or not.

[–]redzorp 5 points6 points  (9 children)

It is a huge risk and you can never protect yourself 100% in the US.

But for all the talk here in the manosphere of prenups being thrown out (and we SHOULD talk about it) what gets lost in the noise is that the VAST MAJORITY of prenups do NOT get thrown out.

So yes, it is still a huge risk. But with the right attorneys, right prenup, drawn up in the right way in a more than reasonable time frame before a marriage - the risk is mitigated. It is never zero but can be reduced to "almost-acceptable" levels.

What "almost-acceptable" means will vary from individual to individual.

Of course vetting the woman is the single most important factor above all else. If you marry a worthless whore - you will get worthless whore end results. If you marry a saint (who can be trained to be good in bed) then maybe just maybe you can make it long term without getting destroyed.

All in all, way to risky for me and just not worth it, since I am not yearning to have kids. But if I ever change my mind on kids, then I would spend a good two years researching and preparing a pre-nup, BEFORE I even started dating prospects. I would also structure my finances in a series of trusts co-owned by my sister and brother, whom I trust above all limits. In other words I would hide assets LEGALLY. Then, I would only marry a woman who was goddamn near perfect and, like Donald Trump, update the pre-nup every five years.

Or fuck it, just donate some sperm to a sperm bank so my genetics live on and live my life MGTOW style: banging sluts, training jiu-jitsu, travelling the world, making money, hanging out with friends, meditating on mountain tops, smoking pot, dropping acid and enjoying the unconditional love of my dog!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (7 children)

I wish there was a way to combine MGTOW and also pass on your genetics. I personally identify more with the MGTOW movement but where I disagree is the concept of never having children. By not wanting kids you are essentially ensuring your genetics die out, you don't make it to the next round, after millions of years of evolution your blood line dies with you with no ancestors to carry it on. Seems wrong to me, although there is immense risk in marriage/having children - the basic purpose of organisms is to pass on their genetics to the next generation. I see this line of thinking similar to suicide in which the desire to not want to live anymore goes against basic biological function which indicates something is not right with the brains function.

Thats my personal thoughts anyway, take them for what theyre worth

[–]fewforwarding 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Men are so desperate and stupid. Is having a pussy around the house really worth $500,000+? Apparently it is.

[–][deleted] 20 points20 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed Contributormonsieurhire2 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm of the opinion that perhaps at least in the USA, and not anywhere else, assuming you want an LTR with kids, it may be possible, although not ideal to have a CEREMONIAL marriage with reasonable trappings, but NO LEGAL marriage.

However, one commenter posted awhile back that in South America, they turn mere cohabitation in to marriage, and who knows what could be brewing in various jurisdictions around the USA. Certainly not me at the moment.

Also, if you get a sham marriage for her social proof, you're still supporting something that ensnares other men, although I guess you could look at it as a Darwinian practice wher you pretend to do something stupid as a competitive strategy to gull other men into doing it.

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]1cover20 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think this story is a population control psyop. It's an old story being brought back up. But realize the following:

(1) She signed the prenup right before the wedding. It's supposed to be 2 months or more, apparently, to show lack of coercion.

(2) He supposedly made this verbal agreement that the prenup would be void when the kids came. Why would that not be in writing? Did he deny it? If he denied it, the judge should have assumed such an agreement did not exist.

(3) Subject to safeguards such as (1), lawyers here have said that a prenup is likely to be ironclad when it comes to alimony or asset division.

(4) And there's little point to living together or being traceable at all, and having kids without marriage. DNA test, paternity proved, you must pay CS regardless of married status. And a prenup can have no effect on this. This is the one area where a prenup does NOT work.

(5) Do check paternity if there's any doubt in your mind. Never ever pay for another man's child.

[–]coin8300 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fuck this; we need to actually do something about this shit. All these white knight pussy legislators caving into womens demands need to be dealt with and the BS laws they passed reversed. That goes for marriage laws and some rape laws. Nothing will happen until we demand it.

[–]eaton80 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Squirrel climbs tree, in other News at 11.

[–]Tarnsman4Life 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is why you never get married, ever if you are a successful man. You get one activist cunt of a judge and bam, prenump thrown out like it was not a legally binding contract because of ma feelz and you are fucked. Family Law among other things has made Marriage a worse investment than buggy whips.

Honestly; if you make 30K a year and you ain't got shit to your name, do it if you get the right chick, fuck it, they can't take blood from a stone, work off the books. But if you are a HNWI you'd have to be insane to place a bet where you lose half your money 60% of the time.

[–]Magnus_Leo 3 points3 points [recovered]

This makes my blood boil. I will read this tomorrow for a good preworkout pump.

[–]_Madison_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why the fuck do people still get married? The financial benefits are nowhere near good enough to offset the risk of losing more than half of everything.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I would just have her killed. God can judge me not some pompous sjw judge prick.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (6 children)

Easy enough to handle. Include a no oral modifications clause..."all changes, modifications, alternations, or amendments to this agreement must be in written form, signed by both parties to be enforceable."

Sounds like shitty lawyering.

[–]watch_ping 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Until the judge decided that your clause is unfair because "muh interpretation"

[–]the_red_scimitar 6 points7 points  (9 children)

OP has added "facts" that are not in the linked story, and are suspect.

Read the story, but here's what he said that have no support from the story:

That's what she says, that he made an oral agreement with her. She has no proof of this promise or this oral agreement, its just his word against hers.

What the story actually says:

She originally refused to sign it, but a few days before her wedding, she agreed to sign after her husband promised her he would do away with the prenup once the two began to have children. He did not destroy the prenup, even after they had children, according to his estranged wife.

The couple separated, and a court ruled on Feb. 20 that Peter Petrakis had "fraudulently induced" Elizabeth Petrakis to sign the prenup that hung only on a verbal promise.

There is nothing here that says she "has no proof" - nor does it say she had proof. For all we know, the husband admitted he had said it. Or not. The point is, OP altered the content to be more sensational.

Not that the story doesn't have merit without the alteration. Pre-nup signed, woman had affairs. But the feminine agenda removes all agency from women (one of the stupidest thing they do to themselves). Their method of fighting the "patriarchy" is to give it ALL the power, pretending they are somehow winning.

But hey, logic isn't their forte, even when they say and think it is. There are a few exceptions, but by and large, as with TRP canon in general, it's about the preponderance, and you'll rarely meet one who actually uses logic in any personal way.

[–]thenarrrowpath 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It sounds like he came to her with the pre-nup a couple of weeks before the wedding. This is why when doing a pre-nup you must communicate with your future spouse about what it is you two want in it, then seek out separate lawyers and have them draft it together. When one party goes off and gets an attorney to draft something up to their liking, then of course shit will get thrown out. Ultimately, just don't get married, cohabitate if you really desire children and some form of "marriage" life. Just do it in a state that doesn't have common law marriage. Otherwise talk to an attorney about how to protect your assets.

[–]bradbrookequincy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you have assets and get married in some states "premarital property" as long as not comingled stays with the person who owned it before marriage. Judges seem to rarely fuck with this as its the exact law. Judges seem to like to flex their muscles and prenups are an easier target since they are just contracts to fight about. Best case IF you get married is to be in these states and get a prenup. I have not had any friends not keep their premarital assets in these states even with no prenup. Best is no marriage but if you do strong prenup will often work but you must know their are risks.

[–]-IIII----------IIII- 2 points2 points [recovered]

What the fuck is wrong with these Beta Billy judges?

How fucked up is our society when any woman can just make up stories and by default be given the benefit of the doubt?

[–]Jooceyjooce 2 points2 points [recovered]

A hit would not cost nearly as much as he stands to lose. I would just have her killed.

[–]nishnasty 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Honestly, if he's a savvy individual in real estate he has most of his assets tied up in real estate investments and irrev trusts so that technically nothing is in his name - so she'd only receive the most minimal amount. They could put their entire house into a trust for all we know as the trustees are his family and friends. Just a thought.

[–]rp_user 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Q: How to make a Pre-nup iron clad?

A: By never getting married.

[–]rabidrabbity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He's got money. He likely has connections. Soon, bitch ass ex-wife will be swimming with the fishes. Problem solved.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How many men will just cut their losses and move on instead of divorce raping their ex? Women are dangerous!

[–]redmeatball 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I bet this will get overturned. At least I hope.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The fucked up thing is that a prenup has to exist in the first place. The law allows a woman to completely fuck over your career and finances given a divorce is in the daily weather forecast, and now you have to insist that she signs a document to prevent that from happening. What?

The fact that a guy has to insist she signs the documentation just seems to be a set up. It's like him saying "My love, I have a lot of assets and you could potentially steal them from me if you decide you want a divorce or I catch you fucking chad." "You're right hubby let me sign that paperwork so I don't divorce rape you up your ass."

It just seems so fucking backwards to me.. It's like if Target made all of their customers sign some document saying "don't steal from our stores if you don't feel like paying for something."

[–]HoundDogs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well it's a good thing a legal contract can be dismissed based on the word of a lying, cheating bitch with the mind of a child.

[–]Doctor_Mayhem 1 point2 points  (4 children)

This is why I now say that if you are a rich man, why in the fuck would you get married? A good whore is worth her pay, and worth her weight in gold.

Here's my plan if I ever get rich: I'm gonna find the hottest, cleanest hooker and pay her something like 120k per year to give it up on demand, whenever I want, with the option for her to leave at any point, with a bonus if she refers a sufficient replacement upon leaving.

Seriously, why would anyone want a wife at this point? What do western girls have to offer other than sex? They can't offer companionship, as they are nothing but ruthless competitors. They can't cook. They aren't honest. They don't know how to even clean a house, and if you're a rich man, you can afford a maid.

Western girls are only good for sex, and if you're a rich man, just buy a whore and put her on contract. A 6-figure salaried whore is still cheaper than marriage.

load more comments (139 replies)