Is Marriage Legalized Prostitution? This Case Certainly Makes It Seem That Way


Pay now, or pay later illustrated once again

TNMM has revealed in past articles that marriage in its current form in Anglo society certainly could be considered legalized prostitution. Women in this dying culture always want to be paid for being alive and rendering infrequent sexual services, since there’s little else they contribute to a modern marriage. They “cash in” when they ring up the divorce lawyer. (Which, incidentally is why “paying up front” rather than paying after the fact should be an option for men…i.e. prostitution should be legalized.)

The transactional nature of sex in female psychology runs deep. All females are ultimately looking for resources in exchange for sex – even in the animal kingdom where female penguins exchange sex for rocks, which are the currency of penguin society.

Proving our point about women wanting resources for sex one way or the other is this case out of Australia. $15 million just wasn’t enough in frivorce court lottery winnings for an Australian wife. (P.S. Maybe this is why SE Asia is covered with Australian blokes fleeing frigid, calculating Australian women. P.P.S. I’d be happy with $1 million, which would be enough to power my minimalist lifestyle until I take the big dirt nap.)

But this chick now wants to break the bank of her ex-husband again after the IPO listing for his company netted him $93 million dollars. Odd, how even after the ink has long since dried on the divorce papers post-expiration date Anglo women have the audacity to come back and demand even more money for their crusty behinds. Here’s the woman’s shoddy logic:

The wife now alleges there has been a miscarriage of justice by reason of her former hubby failed to “disclose relevant information relating to the public listing of a company in which the first respondent held a substantial interest and which resulted in the first respondent reaping a substantial financial reward in the vicinity of $93 million.”

I’d like to be the judge in this case. I’d tell this harradin she was Strong and Independent™ now and that the decision – which she signed – was final. Tough titty, said the kitty.

In other words, her ex didn’t disclose to this money-hungry goddess (who likely had been living a decadent life before her frivorce) he had the possibility of making money after she financially pumped and dumped him in the courtroom.

The court document states that the hubby resists the claim on the basis that “any information that was not disclosed was not relevant to the case” or, if it were, no further disclosure was required.

One has to agree with the husband. Why should he have to disclose a windfall that had not yet occcurred? Even after divorce it seems men can’t be rid of The Predatory Female. The injustice for the defendant (the man) in this case is another shining example of why divorce reform is needed so badly in the nations that comprise the Anglosphere.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.


Join the Discussion | Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s