Files
gigachad-library/why-alimony-must-end.html
T

46 lines
4.7 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
<title>Why Alimony Must End — GigaChad</title>
<link rel="icon" href="/favicon.ico">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/style.css?v=1">
<meta property="og:type" content="website">
<meta property="og:title" content="Why Alimony Must End — GigaChad">
<meta property="og:description" content="The greatest website on the interwebz!">
<meta property="og:image" content="/icons/chads/chad.png">
</head>
<body>
<script>
const setTheme = () => {
const root = document.documentElement
const storage = localStorage.length > 0 ? localStorage : sessionStorage
for (let key in storage) {
if (storage.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
root.style.setProperty(key, storage.getItem(key))
}
}
}
setTheme()
document.addEventListener('visibilitychange', () => { if (!document.hidden) setTheme() })
</script>
<h1>Why Alimony Must End</h1>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="/"><img class="epic" src="/icons/chads/chad.png"></a>
</div>
<hr>
<p class="nav"><span class="nav-left">Listed under <a href="/heartiste-2011.html">Heartiste: 2011</a>.</span><span class="nav-right"><a href="/theme.html">Theme</a></span></p>
<p>From the <a href="https://heartiste.org/2011/11/14/why-alimony-must-end/" target="_blank">original article</a> on November 14, 2011. Author: <a href="https://heartiste.org/" target="_blank">Chateau Heartiste</a>.</p>
<!-- This article was generated automatically using GigaChad System Alpha: HEARTISTE v1.0. If there are any stylistic errors or bugs, please report them. -->
<p>A girl pal was telling me about the uncle of one of her friends. His wife had left him, moved way out of state, and met some new guy who became her live-in boyfriend. Get this: the ex-wife refused to marry the live-in bf because she wanted to keep the alimony spigot open. Years later, she’s still unmarried, still boffing the bf, and still collecting alimony from the ex-hubby beta uncle, who, by all accounts, is a stand-up guy that everyone (except, apparently, his ex-wife) really likes and admires. He doesn’t know where the money goes because the kids are with him most of the time. He thinks most of it funds his ex’s vacations with her lover.</p>
<p>The problem with America’s anti-male marriage and divorce industrial complex is that it allows women’s normally inhibited cuntery — when just and fair, and some might say patriarchal, rules constrain their choices — to effloresce beyond the bounds necessary to maintain a healthy, functioning society. A good rule of thumb: if a woman thinks she can get away with sticking the shiv in a beta to redound to her personal advantage, she will.</p>
<p>There is no feminist in the world who can twist her hamster logic enough to convince anyone worth convincing that legally forcing a man to pay alimony to an ex-wife who refuses to remarry so that the alimony gravy train keeps riding is even remotely within the universe of fairness. A fucking two year old can tell you that this is bullshit on stilts.</p>
<p>Since feminists are so irrational, it’s best to ignore them and focus on persuading people who matter of the rights or wrongs of certain laws and policies. Unfortunately, the number of persuadable people who matter is next to zero in the funhouse amusement theme park formerly known as America.</p>
<p>Assuming for a moment that the elites currently womanning the legal, political, academic and media institutions haven’t gone completely insane or malevolent (a big assumption nowadays), a sensible correction to this blatantly man-hating legal policy (greased by the oily secretions of the world’s number one parasites — divorce lawyers) is a new policy which states in unequivocal terms that any alimony to an ex-wife ends as soon as the tip of another man’s cock pierces her outer labia.</p>
<p>And that’s just a minor concession to fairness. In a truly sensible world which took account of the changed modern mating landscape, there would be no alimony at all. The whole thing’s a fucking sham — like just about everything else that oozes out of courtrooms, boardrooms, ad rooms and legislative committees these days — designed to <del>steal</del> redistribute wealth and prestige from rules-playing beta suckers to bloodsucking grievance groups. You wonder if someday the dutiful and honor-bound betas will wake up to their dispossession, but then you have to remember that impotently bending over and taking it up the poop chute again and again is probably encoded in their DNA, so they really can’t help themselves.</p>
<hr>
<p class="C">Library of GigaChad | <a href="/" target="_blank">GigaChad</a></p>
</body>
</html>