Part II of a Report by Tara Winter Wilson
March 2, 2007 8:11 AM   Subscribe

Toxic Wife Syndrome- "She is the woman who gives up work as soon as she marries, ostensibly to create a stable home environment for any children that might come along, but who then employs large numbers of staff to do all the domestic work she promised to undertake, leaving her with little to do all day except shop, lunch, luxuriate. Believe me, there is no shortage of the breed and I've been inundated with horror tales about them."
posted by wfc123 (79 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: What a trainwreck of a stupid pointless article. -- mathowie



 
So . . . a golddigger, no? OWAIT U came up with a new word.
posted by billysumday at 8:19 AM on March 2, 2007


Tara Winter Wilson's axe has been ground down to practically nothing.
posted by Rhomboid at 8:22 AM on March 2, 2007


Women like this are successful only because there are guys who believe at their core that marriage is essentially a bargain over sex.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:23 AM on March 2, 2007


If I ever get to a point in my life when I can afford to buy staff for my wife, then I'm not really going to care how she spends her time and/or my money. Because frankly, I'll have so much of the lovely, lovely green folding stuff that it's not going to hurt to pass it around.

Half of a million dollar fortune is still half a million dollars.

And to be honest, anyone with that much money probably got it from feeding off the work of much harder working people and they will never see a penny of it. So in a way it's an apt punishment.

sob, sob, sob. This tiny violin is Just for them
posted by seanyboy at 8:24 AM on March 2, 2007


Ain't nothin' toxic 'bout that sexbomb with the poodle. HOLLAH.

Sorry, lost myself for a second there.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:25 AM on March 2, 2007


Biologically, marriage *is* essentially a bargain over sex. But then, biologically, math, art and science are all a waste of time too.
posted by DU at 8:26 AM on March 2, 2007


"Then, there's the ex-wife of a friend of mine, Belinda, who has been awarded several million pounds for a marriage that lasted less than three years and produced no children"

She produced him no children? Outrage!
posted by allen.spaulding at 8:28 AM on March 2, 2007


Best of the web. Right.

This article sounds like it could have been written in the 1920s. Or the 1930s. I wonder if there's a new term every generation for the no doubt many thousands of women who fleece their undefended ex-husbands for half their fortunes every year. Oy.

Flagged as noise, thenk yew.
posted by jokeefe at 8:29 AM on March 2, 2007


Evil golddiggers, tricking poor, innocent men!!! Heh, yea right. It takes two to play those games. You generally get what you go for. I once heard that Melania Trump was asked, would you be with Trump if he wasn't rich? And she responded, would he be with me if I wasn't beautiful? Sounds about right.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:30 AM on March 2, 2007 [6 favorites]


"She became nagging, scolding, overbearing and shrewish."

How can I snark in agreement with this without sounding misogynist?

...

Ahh, screw it.

I thought that was the definition of 'wife'.
posted by SinisterPurpose at 8:31 AM on March 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


You know exactly what you are getting yourself into with a goldigger. This article is more about fraud.
posted by wfc123 at 8:36 AM on March 2, 2007


You could search through the archives for years and still not find an article that sums up the Telegraph and its readership as well as that one. It's a newspaper from a parallel world that looks much like our own, but where everything's somehow tarnished in its soul.
posted by terpsichoria at 8:36 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'm getting really sick of all this inter- and intra-gender-hate I've been reading on these here internets. All men are pigs, all women are looking for the dollars. It's just dumb.
posted by muddgirl at 8:38 AM on March 2, 2007


ThePinkSuperhero nails it - nasty old men marry gorgeous women fifteen years younger than them, placing so much attention on their wife-to-be's physical appearance that they forget to investigate whether she is in fact a cruel, soulless vampire. If you don't know that much about someone before you marry them, it's a safe bet you aren't marrying for love, and it's silly to expect that they are.
posted by crackingdes at 8:39 AM on March 2, 2007 [3 favorites]


Did you know that Anna Nicole Smith was the 2nd of 3 wives that J. Howard Marshall picked up at a strip club? I didn't know that until just recently.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:44 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Heather Mills
posted by caddis at 8:44 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


This article sounds like it could have been written in the 1920s. Or the 1930s.

Actually, it could have been written in the nineteenth century. (Big divorce settlements to one side, that is.)
posted by thomas j wise at 8:48 AM on March 2, 2007


What a nightmare of an article. "How did my trophy wife turn into such a cunt, and why is it costing me so much money?" This is, in essence, trolling masquerading as journalism. Yuck.
posted by Skot at 8:48 AM on March 2, 2007 [4 favorites]


"Did you know that Anna Nicole Smith was the 2nd of 3 wives that J. Howard Marshall picked up at a strip club?"

Third of three, maybe? If I'm not mistaken, they were still married when he died.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:53 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]




"She became nagging, scolding, overbearing and shrewish."


Funny, she didn't look Shrewish. COMB THE DESERT!
posted by spicynuts at 8:55 AM on March 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


"Did you know that Anna Nicole Smith was the 2nd of 3 wives that J. Howard Marshall picked up at a strip club?"

Third of three, maybe? If I'm not mistaken, they were still married when he died.


Sorry; I was unclear, I knew that was going to happen. Anna Nicole was his 3rd wife, and they were married when he died; but she was the 2nd of his 3 wives that he picked up at a strip club.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:57 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Not to inject this discussion with an actual issue, but what about how the courts go about awarding money to short-term spouses in wealthy relationships? The focus of this article is on the women who take advantage of these situations. People take advantage of opportunities. That is not news. But in the case of the large monetary awards to short-term spouses, the opportunity exists because of the court system.

Is this right? If a super-rich guy marries someone who is a waitress and is not rich at all and we are married for three years, does everyone feel that she should get half of my wealth? Does that make sense? Would it be a bad idea to just make sure that she is put in a better position than she could have reasonably expected to be in had she not ever married the guy?

We cynically say that the superficial bride is in it for money and that the superficial groom is in it for sex. One of those motives seems to be backed up a bit by the law.
posted by flarbuse at 9:00 AM on March 2, 2007


Stupid rich men thinking with their dicks. News at eleven.
posted by docpops at 9:05 AM on March 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


No wonder her ex-husband, let's call him Crispin, a City financier, is in despair.

I guess Crispin is the french for Cretin ? I may be wrong ...

'Giving her £5 million for doing absolutely nothing except shop and lunch makes me question the sanity of our legal system.'

AH yeah blame the legal system ! You married her, dolt ! A "City Financier" that doesn't know marriage is ALSO a contract ?

She seems a filthy leech, but he's no bright bulb either. Uhm nice combination !
posted by elpapacito at 9:07 AM on March 2, 2007


Has anyone seen my sympathy for the super-wealthy who marry trophy wives, who then divorce their wealthy asses a short time later?

Anyone? Hello? I'm sure it's around here somewhere...

Can you imagine how many years you'd have to spend in the shower to try and clean The Donald off of your soul?
posted by maxwelton at 9:13 AM on March 2, 2007


I obviously missed the boat.
posted by queenofthegeeks at 9:13 AM on March 2, 2007


One of those motives seems to be backed up a bit by the law.

Is that a secret? Is there a rich man in the world who doesn't know that when he gets a divorce, he's going to have to shell out some cash? Get a prenup or marry well. Or both. It's not that hard. If you're rich, and you marry without a prenup, that's pretty dumb. I can't say I feel too bad for these rich guys (who are still rich when the whole thing ends). Even for Paul McCartney, who is coming out as the Nice Guy in his whole battle- I feel sorry for him on a personal level, but on the other hand, people talked to him about this before he got married- I believe his children were veeeeery against his relationship with Heather Mills.

If a super-rich guy marries someone who is a waitress and is not rich at all and we are married for three years, does everyone feel that she should get half of my wealth? Does that make sense?

It might, yes. Let's say she manages the house/kids for 3 years, and he makes an extra 10 million dollars because he's freer to do whatever it is he does that makes him rich. It's not his money, it's THEIR money, as long as they're married.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:14 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


I was under the impression that it worked the other way around, too....If a super-rich woman married a penniless guy without a prenup, and they were together for a few years, the law would work the same way, right? She would have to give him some of her wealth? I really don't know. It would be pretty unfair if the law was gender specific, but I assumed it went both ways.
posted by crackingdes at 9:19 AM on March 2, 2007


Ahh, to have these problems.
posted by solistrato at 9:20 AM on March 2, 2007


If a super-rich woman married a penniless guy without a prenup, and they were together for a few years, the law would work the same way, right? She would have to give him some of her wealth?

Yes, I believe so. Celeb example: Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey. When they married, he had more money, but they did not sign a prenup (in CA, a community property state). Over the course of the marriage, she made the bulk of their fortune, and ended up having to fork a chunk of it over when they divorced (they settled out of court, but it rumored he got less than half but more than the pennies her camp initially offered).
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:23 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Not to inject this discussion with an actual issue

Hey, don't worry, you didn't.

If a super-rich guy marries someone who is a waitress and is not rich at all and we are married for three years, does everyone feel that she should get half of my wealth?

Since that's the widely understood social and legal contract you (or the not-you super-rich guy; it's hard to tell here) entered when you married the waitress, uh, yeah.
posted by Skot at 9:24 AM on March 2, 2007


The laws in the US are different for different states. I know that in PA, you can leave a marriage with everything that you entered it with but all the wealth that the two of you acquired during the time is common property. So if one of you owned a house when you got married, that would still be owned by the same person after the divorce but any increase in value of that house would have to be split.
posted by octothorpe at 9:26 AM on March 2, 2007


If you're rich, and you marry without a prenup, that's pretty dumb.

Regardless of wealth, I can't imagine getting a prenup. It seems the most unromantic, depressing, cynical thing ever. I don't understand how anyone can vow 'to have and to hold from this day forward; for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part' while deciding who keeps the Manhatten pied-à-terre and who gets the Mercedes.

I'm not saying that people should be prevented from getting prenups, I don't think it's any of my (or the government's) business. But plenty of men would never get a prenup for perfectly good reasons, so it's very harsh to just call them 'dumb'.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 9:29 AM on March 2, 2007


One of my coworkers was whining about how he just spent $700 on a purse for his wife for her birthday. I just looked at him and said "you picked her". I think that really sums it up.
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 9:32 AM on March 2, 2007


But plenty of men would never get a prenup for perfectly good reasons, so it's very harsh to just call them 'dumb'.

I stand behind what I said. I didn't call the people dumb, but if you are very wealthy, and you are marrying someone who is not, it is not smart to not think about the legal and financial implications of what will happen if you ever split up. Especially if you're so wealthy that you can pay someone else to do it.

It seems the most unromantic, depressing, cynical thing ever.

Right, that's the way people think about it. And they shouldn't. Getting a prenup is a way of saying, I love you so much that I'm going to prepare this legal document to prevent myself from hurting you in the future, in case the worst ever happens. I understand that it's an unromantic thing to think about while you're picking out honeymoon locations, but if the choice is between that and having to fight it out in court for months and possibly years, the prenup is sooooo much easier.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:35 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Man, who is that in the photo!! Hawt!

(the chick with sunglasses is cute too)
posted by vronsky at 9:36 AM on March 2, 2007


With American newspapers, I can always tell the tabloids apart from the rest pretty easily. I find this much more difficult with some of the British newspapers. Am I just defective in some way?
posted by Western Infidels at 9:42 AM on March 2, 2007


Regardless of wealth, I can't imagine getting a prenup. It seems the most unromantic, depressing, cynical thing ever.

Never been married, huh.

Sometimes the honeymoon ends. ... and people get vindictive. And people pay.
posted by pwedza at 9:44 AM on March 2, 2007


Well, Aloysius, if a) you had several million and b) you knew this kind of thing could happen...you might change your tune.

If you're rich, you attract people wanting your money; being human, you might be duped. Hence: prenup.

Too much of a mental stretch for this guy, though. I think the underlying sentiment is "why don't women know their place and let men like me use them for free till I tire of them? OH THE HUMANITY!" And you know, not getting much sympathy from me.

I mean, yeah, she went shopping; but she also had to sleep with him. Maybe she was underpaid, for all we know.
posted by emjaybee at 9:45 AM on March 2, 2007


would you be with Trump if he wasn't rich? And she responded, would he be with me if I wasn't beautiful?

This is very true, but to get to the heart of it -- if he has to shell out alimony after the divorce, she should be legally required to toss him some pity sex.
posted by Bookhouse at 9:48 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Also, this whole thing is a good reminder on why I'm not sold on the idea of marriage. As Doug Stanhope says, if marriage didn't exist, would you invent it? "Baby, I love you so much I want to get the government involved."
posted by Bookhouse at 9:52 AM on March 2, 2007 [4 favorites]


Funny, she didn't look Shrewish. COMB THE DESERT!

Spicynuts: Thank you.
posted by WPW at 9:57 AM on March 2, 2007


"She became nagging, scolding, overbearing and shrewish. She made my life a misery."

As if this only happens to rich guys.
posted by MikeMc at 10:00 AM on March 2, 2007


COMB THE DESERT!

"we ain't found shit!"
posted by vronsky at 10:01 AM on March 2, 2007


What the fuck, metafilter? This article is about rape, in the emotional and financial sense, and most of you are taking the "he was asking for it, with all that flashy money and his tendency to seek the company beautiful women" side. Seriously, does double standard mean anything anymore?
posted by tehloki at 10:04 AM on March 2, 2007


I'm not trying to start an argument about prenuptials; it's a personal debate to which there is no right answer, and I certainly don't intend to criticise people who do choose to get prenuptials. I think they're cynical and in some way devalue marriage, but I don't expect everyone else to agree with me.

I took issue with TPS for describing it as a "dumb" decision not to get one — I think couples are perfectly entitled not to get one, and it's not for TPS to criticise someone who just has a different view of marriage from hers.

Of course, cultural differences are a factor here: in Britain, prenuptials have no legal standing, so courts are entitled to ignore them. Perhaps if I were a Hollywood mogul I would have a different opinion — but that's exactly what I'm saying: it's a personal decision that oughtn't to be described as 'dumb'.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 10:05 AM on March 2, 2007


The article makes it sound like this is a problem we all might face some day. Those women are after my money, and I thank the Telegraph for warning me. I will pass the warning on to my husband, so we can stand united against the Toxic Wives.
posted by The corpse in the library at 10:06 AM on March 2, 2007


She became nagging, scolding, overbearing and shrewish."

I thought that was the definition of 'wife'.


I once again feel pityingly sorry for people who need to make wife or husband jokes of this nature. Why stay married if you have such contempt for the other person?
posted by agregoli at 10:09 AM on March 2, 2007


I think couples are perfectly entitled not to get one, and it's not for TPS to criticise someone who just has a different view of marriage from hers.

Oh please. Would the internet exist if it weren't for porn and people criticizing other people? It's my opinion; you're entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine. This is a forum for sharing opinions. So I can say whatever I want, thank you.

While we're at it, what do you think of as the "perfectly good reasons" (as said above) to NOT get a prenup, other than it being unromantic? I've said my piece, why don't you say yours? Because I can't think of a good reason NOT to get one (in a country where they're valid, of course), but maybe you could convince me otherwise.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:09 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


If a super-rich guy marries someone who is a waitress and is not rich at all and we are married for three years, does everyone feel that she should get half of my wealth?

Sure. How much do you think Britney's going to have to cough up for Federline?
posted by jokeefe at 10:10 AM on March 2, 2007


Can we all just assume that any article puporting to be about social trends which includes no evidence of their increase or importance other than the phrase (or its equivalent) "then, there's the ex-wife of a friend of mine, Belinda" should automatically be excluded from any kind of serious consideration?
posted by jokeefe at 10:14 AM on March 2, 2007


Well, I guess the NYTimes Style section is out, then.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:16 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Sure. How much do you think Britney's going to have to cough up for Federline?

I don't think anyone wants anything she's coughing up nowadays...
posted by inigo2 at 10:17 AM on March 2, 2007


Is this the thread where we cackle about the soul-less rich and mask our fears of females by shitting on them?
Great.
posted by Dizzy at 10:20 AM on March 2, 2007


Two words.

Pre. Nup.
posted by sfts2 at 10:27 AM on March 2, 2007


Oh look, it's the Internet White Knight Brigade!
posted by keswick at 10:28 AM on March 2, 2007


Oh please. Would the internet exist if it weren't for porn and people criticizing other people?

Keep aiming high.

Because I can't think of a good reason NOT to get one … but maybe you could convince me otherwise.

Did you read my last comment? I'm hardly about to try and convince you that my opinion of prenuptials is right and yours is wrong, after saying that it's a purely personal decision. One is either repelled by prenups, or thinks they're sensible — it's a personal, emotional opinion, and no one is ever going to be convinced by some random on the internet to change their mind about it.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 10:31 AM on March 2, 2007


Toxic Wife would be an awesome MeFi ID.
posted by JanetLand at 10:39 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


One is either repelled by prenups, or thinks they're sensible — it's a personal, emotional opinion, and no one is ever going to be convinced by some random on the internet to change their mind about it.

So what are you doing here discussing the issue, then? Listening to yourself talk? I don't see it as totally black and white. I think it's silly for a rich person (or anyone who has assets, really) to get married without a prenup, but what do I know? You said, there are perfectly valid reasons someone wouldn't get one. Ok, so what are they? I'm throwing you a line here; I'm interested in what you have to say, if you do in fact have anything to say other than "OMG YOU CAN'T SAY THAT", which sounds silly at a place like this.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:40 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


I like your comments Pink. But was REALLY surprised to hear you defend prenups. Because I think of you as a boy-crazy, crushie-crush, uber-romantic. (in a good way - and smart too) So it was a surprise, but well made point.
posted by vronsky at 10:45 AM on March 2, 2007


Hahha, thanks vronsky. Prenups are one of those things I almost hate to defend, because they are, like Aloysius Bear said, really unromantic. And I can't say for sure that I would get one if I got married, because there is that perceived negative implication of, How Can We Say It Will Last Forever If We Prepare For The End? Kids who want to stay virgins until they're married don't carry condoms, right? But I know in my head that it's a wise thing to do, particularly if you have children from a previous marriage, or there's a great asset imbalance coming into the marriage. It's tough.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:53 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


There are a lot of cynics in this thread, making it out like every single older, richer man with a younger, more beautiful wife is just using her as part of a sex for cash exchange.

It's offensive.

Quit it.
posted by PEAK OIL at 10:54 AM on March 2, 2007


I work in a tax office. A lot of our churchgoing customers, I tell them they're allowed to deduct their tithes and offerings and they tell me flat out that they don't want to. They feel like it would go against the spirit of the whole thing if they were getting personal benefit out of tithing.

It's not rational — not in the economist's sense of the word. But it's their choice, and as long as they're making it freely and not being coerced by their church, I'm all for it. You do whatever you need to do to feel like a good person, and in the end that matters more than money.

That's what the argument about prenups reminds me of. Sure, they're the smart thing to do, but some people have belief systems — religious or secular — that rule them out. What should they do — take the money and feel like assholes, or lose some money and sleep well at night?
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:59 AM on March 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


('Course, if someone asked my opinion, I'd tell 'em to get the prenup, take the deduction, do whatever they have to do to take care of themself. I'm just saying, I'm willing to respect people who choose otherwise because I know how depressing it can be to do things that make you feel mean, petty and small.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 11:02 AM on March 2, 2007


"Anna Nicole was his 3rd wife, and they were married when he died; but she was the 2nd of his 3 wives that he picked up at a strip club."

Aha, now it makes sense. I blame the caffeine (or lack thereof).
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:02 AM on March 2, 2007


there is that perceived negative implication of, How Can We Say It Will Last Forever If We Prepare For The End?

I agree with TPS wholeheartedly on the prenup thing, and I think that part of the problem is this whole expectation that it will last forever. I mean, I hope my marriage will be a good one forever, but if it isn't, I really hope I have the guts to get out of it. Ditto for my partner. And if we had any assets, I think getting a prenup would be the most respectful thing to do. Kind of like what TPS said - I love you so much that in case things go wrong, I want to feel free (or you to feel free) to leave, without worrying about money or fighting with each other for years. Especially if there are kids involved.
posted by arcticwoman at 11:04 AM on March 2, 2007


I didn't start a discussion about the rights and wrongs of prenups — you said, "If you're rich, and you marry without a prenup, that's pretty dumb."

I said it's unfair to describe someone else's decision about a purely personal, subjective matter as dumb. Personally, I can't see how vowing to love and cherish someone til death do us part is compatible with agreeing how you're going to split up your stuff. You can't seriously vow to do something for the rest of your life, while making contingency plans. If you don't have faith in your spouse not to dump you in a few years and make off with your Porsche, why are you marrying them?

I realise that there are rational, financial reasons for making prenups, but for me these are outweighed by the instinctive, emotional reasons. I certainly don't expect you to be persuaded by these reasons into changing your mind: I'm trying to explain my personal reasons for feeling this way, not trying to persuade anyone else, or criticise other couples' decisions.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 11:05 AM on March 2, 2007



I once again feel pityingly sorry for people who need to make wife or husband jokes of this nature.


I feel pityingly sorry for people who lack a sense of humor.
posted by spicynuts at 11:05 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


There are a lot of cynics in this thread, making it out like every single older, richer man with a younger, more beautiful wife is just using her as part of a sex for cash exchange.

No. They are saying that if an older, richer man is using a woman for sex, he has no right to assume that she wouldn't use him for money. Tit for tat. Or, uh, tit for cash.
posted by arcticwoman at 11:06 AM on March 2, 2007


There's something weirdly fair about using someone who is using you in return. (Skeevy, but fair.) I'm sure there are a few rich men who genuinely love the woman who's using them; for that matter, I'm sure there are a few trophy wives who genuinely love their keepers. But I think sad arrangements like that are fortunately the minority — most people are bright enough to notice when things are that one-sided.

And of course, if nobody's using anyone, it doesn't belong in this thread. I'm sure there are some arrangements like that too, and more power to 'em.
posted by nebulawindphone at 11:09 AM on March 2, 2007


if he has to shell out alimony after the divorce, she should be legally required to toss him. some pity sex.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:12 AM on March 2, 2007


"Marrying means to halve one's rights and double one's duties." - Schopenhauer

Aloysius Bear writes "I realise that there are rational, financial reasons for making prenups, but for me these are outweighed by the instinctive, emotional reasons."

Making a decision while in the throes of passion which will impact your life long after the passion has faded...yeah, I don't see why you'd want to make any kind of contingency plans either.
posted by mullingitover at 11:14 AM on March 2, 2007


"Why stay married if you have such contempt for the other person?"

Um, because divorce is costly, destructive and emotionally torturous, for either party?

I think the number of marriages that stay together because of unremitting love is very small. It's possible to have a mutually beneficial cooperative long-term relationship that's more about convenience, mutual support, and fear of loneliness - and probably a lot easier than maintaining a truly loving marriage. People can be mercurial, and the relationship can change for any number of reasons, but sometimes it makes more sense to stay married even if it's unhappy.

I should think there's a corollary, the Toxic Husband Syndrome, with a number of different manifestations: the guy who turns out to be a strip club or prostitute addict; the guy who turns into the abusive wife-beater; the guy who turns into the wife- and children-ignoring workaholic; the guy who becomes a get-rich-quick gambler and loses the house to debt; the guy who turns into the happily unemployed couch potato... to imagine a few.

A couple of those have happened to women I know. To be fair, a couple of guys I know have had their wives transform into toxic people too. It happens.

Sometimes it's just a crapshoot.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:14 AM on March 2, 2007


"What the fuck, metafilter? This article is about rape, in the emotional and financial sense, and most of you are taking the "he was asking for it, with all that flashy money and his tendency to seek the company beautiful women" side. Seriously, does double standard mean anything anymore?"

Oh, you scamp.

"There are a lot of cynics in this thread, making it out like every single older, richer man with a younger, more beautiful wife is just using her as part of a sex for cash exchange.

It's offensive.

Quit it."

But that made me laugh harder.
posted by klangklangston at 11:19 AM on March 2, 2007


If you're rich, and you marry without a prenup, that's pretty dumb.

How about if you're middle class, when getting taken for a ride in divorce court is a serious financial obstacle to starting a new life? Although the article focuses on that side of things, spousal toxicity is not limited to the wealthy.

Anyway, let's get back to the feminazi rally before someone expresses a dangerous opinion.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:19 AM on March 2, 2007


I'll only chime in to note that whenever jokes about marriage arise, there are people who find those jokes offensive enough to comment about how sad it makes them.

Marriage is an imperfect agreement between two people. Like any other human endeavor, it's perhaps worthy of praise and probably worthy of having some fun poked at it. Lighten up, folks--this isn't a reflection on your marriage.
posted by maxwelton at 11:21 AM on March 2, 2007


Although the article focuses on that side of things, spousal toxicity is not limited to the wealthy.

Certainly not. On that level, prenups make sense for everyone, even the really poor, or those marrying young (I wonder if there's data out there somewhere on who is getting prenups- I would guess that it's skewed toward older couples, but I'd love to see the numbers).
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:23 AM on March 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Why a prenup IS romantic. "I love you enough to want to prove to you I don't want you for your money" and "I want us both to have our own assets and indiviuality, in case our lives go in different directions," which happens even when people don't blow up in a divorce squabble. "We are not rich, but we have various assets, and that is not what our love is about." Being afraid of a prenup is like denial to me -- denial that people can turn out to be other than what you thought they were, denial that people change, denial that you could be mistaken about yourself and start acting like a righteous jerk without knowing it.
posted by Listener at 11:31 AM on March 2, 2007 [4 favorites]


Strange. This was in the morning commuter paper here in Chicago.

"Internet has created a booming market for 'sugar babies,' but do these arrangements help or degrade women?"
posted by mjbraun at 11:33 AM on March 2, 2007


« Older Protest-song Percussionist   |   Flash game: celebrity global warming stars and... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments