Feed on


This post is also available in: Englisch

Maybe I should start an ‘Alpha of the Month’ series. Check out this guy:

A man who stopped paying alimony payments to his Clay County ex-wife five years ago and moved to Indonesia — out of the reach of law enforcement — was arrested Friday when he returned to town for a wedding.

The Clay County Sheriff’s Office said David Evans owes his wife $188,000 in alimony payments.

$188,000. Say it to yourself. ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT THOUSAND. For saying “I do”. There is not a woman alive whose blowjob technique merits $188,000 in recompense. The alimony payday is state-sanctioned theft, pure and simple.

I’ve long advocated that should you find yourself on the assramming end of the divorce industrial complex, your best bet is to shift your assets overseas and leave the country. Our hero flipped the bird at our anti-male laws, and for that, I salute him. The fact that he slipped up and stupidly returned to the US five years later for a wedding (irony alert) shouldn’t detract from his admirable heroism in the field of battle. I bestow upon him the greatest honor a man can receive — membership in the Heartiste Society, including the wrought-iron triskelion ring which will grant him access to the chateau.

If alphas have a ‘look’, then this guy has it:



At this point, it hardly matters what this guy did or didn’t do in the run-up to his divorce. He may have cheated, lied and stolen, or his wife may have boffed his cousin. The marriage culture has degenerated to such a nadir that these piddling he said-she said details are of little concern in the face of the larger injustice. Absent children and proof of fault, there is no good reason a man should owe his ex-wife ONE RED CENT in the event of a divorce. If she stayed at home becoming best friends with Oprah instead of advancing in a pointless public relations career, that is her body her choice, and the consequences are hers to grapple with. To believe otherwise is to believe that the state should treat women like children, incapable of accounting for their own life choices. And if that’s the standard by which the state will act with regards to women’s post-marital entitlements, then I suggest the state extend its paternalistic logic to other realms in which women operate. A repeal of female voting rights would be a good start.

If a woman initiates divorce from a man and children are involved, unless she can prove fault by her husband she should not even get child support. I can already hear the disingenuous whining. “But the children will suffer! Think of the children!” If the children are suffering she can always stay with her husband, give them to the husband if she decides to ditch him, or put the kids up for adoption. If she wishes to give the kids to the ex-husband, but he’d rather not have his freedom and funtime curtailed by babysitting duties (and I wouldn’t blame him), *and* the divorce was his fault, he can have the option of paying child support in lieu of physically raising them.

Any woman who has a problem with what I wrote has revealed herself to be a leech intent on riding the gravy train. Humans will cling to nothing as tenaciously as a structurally advantageous power position. In America 2009, the emergent marriage and divorce conspiracy is such an obviously raw deal for men that it’s a wonder they still bother. The fear must be strong in many men. If I were the hypothetical leader of this conspiracy, I would target young, religious men for marriage who were too naive to know any better.

There are ways to save marriage, but I can sleep easy at night knowing no one will take up the cause. My lifestyle will remain unchallenged.

To recap: Don’t get married. At least when you break up with a girlfriend you don’t have to provide her with a retirement plan.


Comments are closed.