Profhugodegaris.files.wordpress.com



MY SISTER GOT DIVORCE RAPED Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garisprofhugodegaris@ sister got divorced raped recently. This means that both of my siblings, a brother and a sister, have been divorced raped, and I have had half of my savings stolen from me by one of my wives.So with a track record of three out of three, it is not surprising that the three of us agree with the millions of other people now, who think that “marriage sucks.” It is seen increasingly as an “ancient relic” that needs to be scrapped, or at least heftily revised, so that it is fairer to both sexes, to both partners in a relationship.I will describe what happened to my sister, then to my brother, and to me, before making suggestions on how the injustices of the current marriage contract need to be scrapped or overhauled.My sister married or rather remarried with a man, whose identity I will not disclose, with no kids from this marriage. They separated recently, and as a result, given current marriage/divorce law in the country they live in, half of the wealth of the couple will go to him, even though he did very little to generate that wealth. The economic powerhouse in that relationship was my sister, who built up a medical clinic, employing a score of doctors, so she was worth well into the 8 figures, i.e. more than ten million dollars. She will lose half of that wealth to her soon to be ex-husband, simply due to the divorce law that is as old fashioned as it is unjust, profoundly, economically, unjust, that is screaming out to be reformed, scrapped, rejected.Her ex-husband hasn’t really worked hard for some decades, working part time in his wife’s clinic, so it was clearly my sister, who was the economic mover and shaker in this relationship of theirs. She was the one who made the big bucks, so she should not be penalized in losing half of that wealth that she accumulated through her initiative, her brains, her guts, her vision, and her risk taking.The current marriage law, especially when there are no children involved, is what the British divorced fathers organizations called the “Parasites Charter”. It allows a partner in the marriage to sit on his/her fat parasitic arse, to divorce, and then to carry off half of the wealth, accumulated by the labor and efforts of the other partner. This is theft. This is unjust. This sucks, and has to be thrown out, through political pressure, so that it is no longer possible, simply by marrying, then divorcing, to walk away with millions, i.e. millions earned by the other partner. This is theft. This has to go.In the case of my brother, he married his second wife, whom I called derogatorily “the big boobed bimbo” whose sexual attraction to my brother was a lot higher than that of her brainpower, to such a point that my sister nearly crossed off my brother in her mind. Not surprisingly, that marriage did not last very long. A kid resulted, so the divorce law treated my brother very badly. He was quite wealthy at the time, dealing in the construction of apartment blocks, that made him a lot of money. His personal fortunes, have waxed and waned several times. At the time of his divorce, he was quite wealthy, so had to fork out several million dollars to his big boobed bimbo (BBB) simply because she was married to him. That is the law, and the law sucks. It needs to be changed. The BBB, in all her stupidity, who sat on her fat parasitic arse, with little talent, no business enterprise, who simply squeezed out a kid that she wanted, was able to extract millions that she certainly did not deserve, having done nothing to earn that money, and to walk away with millions. Talk about a Parasites Charter!In my own case, I had a Chinese wife, when living in China, who suggested to me one day that I could get a better return on my savings, by putting it into stocks, so I agreed. Because I was a westerner, I couldn’t read the Chinese characters on official Chinese documents, so I would just sign the dotted line, trusting my Chinese wife to make the appropriate decisions.That wife, told me early on in the relationship that she would study for a PhD, which she never did. The relationship soured, due largely to my growing lack of admiration and respect for her laziness, so we separated. When I went to the bank to collect my investment money, I learned that those investments were made with her signature, so by Chinese law the money was hers. I got a divorce lawyer to sue her for a divorce and return of that money, but Chinese divorce law favors Chinese nationals, so I ended up never getting that money, half of my savings, back from her. So I felt robbed by that chink bitch. Her attitude was that “a man who penises a woman, pays for that woman.” That attitude enrages a masculist.So, three out of three. In all three situations, an economic injustice was committed, so what can be done for future generations, so that this kind of immoral theft can no longer take place?I will now begin making suggestions on what the masculists see as solutions to the above types of problem. I split the suggestions into two groups, i.e. relationships involving no kids, and relationships involving kids, since the two are quite distinct.My main suggestion for the first case, i.e. relationships with no kids, issimply not to marry. As a masculist, I propose just to twaytwef, i.e. 2A2F, i.e. have two apartments (houses, abodes) and be two FIPs (financially independent persons) so that when the relationship goes sour, as most do, then the two ex-partners, simply walk away, at no cost to each other. In my own case, I more than simply twaytwef, I also “3-4” i.e. I stay at my girlfriend’s for 3 days and nights, and live in my own apartment for the other 4 days and nights. This 3-4 variant of the twaytwef lifestyle creates a discipline, causing both partners to be civil and pleasant to each other, no nagging, no putting down, etc., as well as benefitting from the “absence makes the heart grow fonder” phenomenon, due to the separation of what I call the “4day” i.e. the 4 day period apart. Thus the sex is regular because it is starved in a manner of speaking, due to the 4day. There is not enough time for the two partners to be bored by each other’s presence, due to the 4 day gap. This 3-4 system allows the two partners to have their separate lives, doing their own things, in their own apartments, so their need for personal space, both physically and mentally, is respected and satisfied. It is a system that works. (End of part 1.)For people less affluent, for whom there is an economic need to live full time in the same dwelling, then there is a much greater risk that the relationship will suffer real strains, due to overexposure, due to daily annoyances, the temptation of the woman to start nagging, withholding sex, etc., or the man to emotionally withdraw, due to his frustration and boredom with the woman. So, to such a couple, i.e. who live together full time, with no kids, they should make a legal contract, that they both sign, and have witnessed by a justice of the peace (JP) stipulating what they have agreed to do when the time comes to separate, e.g. who gets what. If one partner brings in more possessions to the dwelling than the other, then the other has no right to walk away with those possessions brought into the relationship, into the common dwelling, by the other partner. The operating principle here is that one exits the relationship with what one brought into it. There is to be no theft of property by one partner by the other. Just because two people live together, does not give one partner the right to steal the property of the other partner, on breakup.Laws need to be passed so that these contracts, which might be called simply “breakup contracts (BCs)” are to be binding, legal, which cannot be dissolved according to the whim of some “separation judge” who is equivalent to a “divorce judge” in the current divorce system.I remember a decade ago, on a visit to my sister and brother, she was talking about the concern felt by her doctor colleagues over the new “palimony law” that was about to be legislated, that would legally “marry” a couple who lived together for two years, so that in the eyes of the law the couple was effectively married, and hence subject to the current divorce laws, hence payment of alimony etc. These female doctor colleagues of my sister were frightened that their poorer boyfriends, might be able to “divorce rape” them of these women’s superior wealth, so they were thinking seriously, of pushing their boyfriends from their homes, so that the law did not see them as having lived together for more than two years, or as though the relationship was no long equivalent to a traditional full time marriage.Roughly one woman in four is nowadays a real FIP (financially independent person) , i.e. a woman who has bothered to get a career competent education, so that she can be a real FIP as an adult, and not expect fluffie style, to be able to parasite off the money and labor of a man. I say, about one in four, because at the critical age of 16 in high school, ? of these young women choose to study what the masculists call “fluffie crap,” making these young women, “fluffie crappers.” Fluffie crap is the name given to those high school majors that are intellectually easier, intellectually lazier, memory based, usually called the soft option, that don’t require much analytical thought in contrast to the hard option, that does require abstract analytical thought, such as math and the sciences. In the old Soviet Union, the teaching of calculus was compulsory for both sexes in the junior and senior year of high school, so as to push women into the professions, and to strongly discourage them from becoming fluffie parasites in their 20s and 30s.Masculists put enormous moral pressure on fluffies to FIP up, i.e. to become FIPs, by choosing to study career competent majors at high school and college, so that a gender political climate is created in which it is merely the custom for all women to be FIPs, i.e. the creation of what the masculists call, the “FIP Society.”When there are no kids, then two individuals who choose to have a relationship would be expected to keep what they bring to the start of the relationship in terms of material possessions, at the end of that relationship, i.e. no theft of possessions by one partner from the other. This should be a basic ethical principle.Now for the more complex case of couples with kids. As a masculist, I have a hatred of divorce rape, that is usually at the cost of the divorcing father, who gets typically royally screwed by the hated fluffie feminist hypocrite controlled divorce courts, who still have fluffie attitudes towards men, who see men as cash machine, existing on this earth to pay for women to have babies, so are to be robbed and abused by their ex-wives, by law, since the law itself has been created largely under the pressure of fluffie feminists, who wanted equal rights for women in the parliaments, but behave as fluffie parasites in the divorce courts.My suggestion for couples who are planning to have kids, is to make a “prenup” i.e. a pre-nuptial (i.e. pre marriage) contract, that is carefully negotiated by both parties, and that is respected by LAW, so that some fluffie feminist divorce judge is NOT able to throw it out of court, as happens is many countries today, making the prenup contract worthless. Masculists need to pass laws that make the prenup binding, so that fickle fluffie feminist divorce court judges are not allowed, by law, to throw it out of court.With such binding, legally rigorous prenups, a couple who plans to have kids, needs to think hard about the prospect of a divorce, given that half of marriages in many countries today, end in divorce. Divorce is serious business, so needs to be thought hard about, especially by men, who are so typically screwed by the hated fluffie feminist hypocrite dominated divorce court system. As an example, in such a prenup, custody of the children after a divorce would be joint, there would be no alimony. Child care would need to be discussed in detail. Who looks after the kids when they are very small. Is there to be a nanny? If a single house is used, what happens to it after the divorce, etc. There are many issues to be discussed, so that any couple contemplating marriage and kids, need to be educated into divorce law and to points to pay attention to when making up a prenup. This is far from being the case today.Prenup writing, ought to be taught in high schools as part of general “life education” i.e. skills that everyone ought to be taught, so as to be better able to cope with the problems that typically come up in the daily course of living, e.g. how to change a car tyre, how take out a bank loan, how to call for an ambulance, etc.The masculists and a growing number of female masculists, who, like my sister, are increasingly faced with the prospect of being divorce raped, need to combine forces and have the law regarding prenups made water proof, so that, as in some countries, they are legally binding, so that some fluffie feminist witch of a divorce court judge cannot simply throw prenups out of court, on her (usually her) whim, according to the mood she was in on that day in court.In closing, divorce rape is an immoral abomination, that has to be rejected, to be reformed out of existence, so that today’s massive divorce court injustices become a thing of the past. We are far from that today, because there is not enough masculist consciousness around, to change the attitudes of the fluffie feminists, who simply expect men to pay for women to have babies, to pay for women to sit on their fat parasitic arses, expecting to be able to sexploit men, by having men be manslaves to them, working for them, in exchange for a bit of sex from blue moon to blue moon.Current divorce laws suck. They need to be changed, reformed, thrown out.Cheers,Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garisprofhugodegaris@ of the book “MASCULISM : Men’s Rebellion Against Being Manslaves to Women, An e-Textbook of 370+ Masculist Flyers for Men’s Studies Courses” freely downloadable in MS Word format, from my website. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download