Demi Moore Divorce Part 2

Demi Moore

Get Free Email Updates!

Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!

Demi Moore Divorce Part 2

This is one of those times I don't know whether to laugh or cry. As I've talked about on this blog before, immature dork Ashton Kutcher and angry over-33 Demi Moore recently got a divorce after Ashton cheated on her with a few younger hotter chicks (and she responded by cheating on him). Intelligent, mature, "independent" Demi thought expecting lifetime monogamy from a good-looking, high-sex-drive, high-emotion 27 year-old was a great idea. Shockingly that didn't work out, and their marriage only lasted six years.

-By Caleb Jones

Now the plot thickens. 50 year-old Demi actually wants Ashton to pay her alimony. It is unknown whether or not they had a prenuptial agreement. Based on what I've read, my guess is they didn't. (Which if true would have been yet another genius move on the part of both of them.)

A few things that have nothing whatsoever to do with Demi's decision:

It recently came to light that Ashton made $24 million last year from his show Two And A Half Men. Again, I'm sure this has nothing to do with Demi's decision. Ashton is dating younger and hotter Mila Kunis, who is considered to be one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood. This also has nothing whatsoever to do with Demi's decision.

Also, Demi really, really, really needs the money, because:

She has a higher net worth than Ashton. She's worth $150 million, Ashton is worth $140 million.
At one point during the 90's she was the highest paid actress in world history.
She never had any children with Ashton.
She already got a check for $90 million from Bruce Willis when she divorced him.
She really deserves Ashton's money because she's a great mom to her daughters (whom she had with Bruce Willis), so much so that she's addicted to whippits and prescription meds, hits on her own daughter's friends, and her own family has grown tired of her "constant partying and erratic behavior".
Ashton already offered her several million dollars (reports vary as to the exact amount), but "it wasn't enough" for her, so now she's using the courts to go after him.

I'm going to say something that may surprise you: Demi Moore isn't the problem. Demi Moore, and the millions of women like her, are the symptom and result of the problem.

The real problem is a culture and a government that says to women, "Mad at your ex-husband? Go after his money! Even if you don't need it and don't deserve it! We'll help you get it!" If this is told to women repeatedly, then none of us can be surprised when the Demi Moore's of the world get into stupid marriages obviously doomed to failure from the start, then go after men for money they don't deserve, and usually get it.

You can't change women like Demi Moore. They are what they are. What you need to change is the culture that says this is okay, and the government that enforces these insane systems. Then the Demi Moore's of the world will be powerless to rip people off and waste the taxpayer's time and money. Well, yeah, maybe Demi Moore is being ridiculous, but some women really do need alimony. Men can't just abandon women you know.

Every woman who gets married these days is well aware that the divorce rate is insanely high, as in 64% in most cities, even though the most quoted statistic is a "50%" divorce rate. Even complete morons know this. Any woman getting married and then actively behaving as if she's going to be taken care of the rest of her life from that marriage needs her head examined.

Yes, if this was the 1950's when the divorce rate was 8%, these women would have a point. But in the modern era where the vast majority of marriages fail? Uh, no. I'm sorry, but women aren't stupid. Let's stop pretending they are. Look, some women stay home and take care of kids for their husbands instead of going out and working! That's what child support is for. These women should expect and receive child support, and men who flat out refuse to pay child support are bastards. Child support is a good thing. I'm talking here about alimony, which should be abolished.

Well, some husbands tell their women to stay home and work. So these women stay home during the marriage and don't build a career like the men are doing. These women need alimony when they get divorced. Those women are making their own choice to do that. No one is putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to not get a job. If these women choose to stay home and not work for five, ten, or fifteen years, that's their decision.

I promise you that if I was a woman who got married in a culture with a 64% divorce rate, and my Needy Alpha husband "commanded" me to stay home and not work because that might threaten his fragile ego, I'd tell him to fuck off. Then I'd go get a job. Or a part-time job, or start a small home-based business or an online business that I could run when the kids were asleep or at school. If he didn't like it or threw a fit about it, I'd quickly divorce his needy ass and go marry someone else who didn't have a problem with me living my life. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?

I love it how women are so "tough" and "independent" and "take charge of their lives" and "don't need a man" except when they get divorced. Then suddenly they're weak, helpless victims cowering in front of their powerful husbands. You can't have it both ways ladies, so which one is it?

The bottom line is we live in a culture that encourages this insane thinking and a government that gleefully enforces it. This means you as a man should either never get legally married, or only get married when you have an enforceable prenuptial agreement in place. Problem solved. (Now proceed to tell me that your wife or girlfriend is Different™ and Not Like The Rest™ and Would Never Do That™ so you don't need a prenup. Uh-huh.)

Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
[vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_raw_html] JTNDYSUyMHRhcmdldCUzRCUyMl9ibGFuayUyMiUyMGhyZWYlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRmFscGhhbWFsZTIwLmthcnRyYS5jb20lMkZwYWdlJTJGcFU1ODMlMjIlM0UlMEElM0NpbWclMjBzcmMlM0QlMjIlMjBodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRmNhbGViam9uZXNibG9nLmNvbSUyRndwLWNvbnRlbnQlMkZ1cGxvYWRzJTJGMjAyMCUyRjA4JTJGVFVNLTcyOFg5MC0xLnBuZyUyMCUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRmElM0UlMEE=[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner]
This article was originally published on March 14, 2013


  • Dan 2013-03-14 07:06:53

    Yeah, I agree this sucks. BUT, it's one of about a million things that suck. I try not to get hung up on this shit anymore because I know that, even if alimony was eliminated, there are many other things I don't like that are waiting in line to cause problems (albeit ones that may not be so financially fucked).

  • Dan 2013-03-14 07:09:20

    By the way, shouldn't Kutcher be the one receiving alimony since, as you stated, his net worth is lower than Demi's? Alimony payments can go to a man, too.

  • sarcasticuss 2013-03-14 08:32:03

    $150 million net worth? Hopefully the judge bitch slaps her for wasting the court's time.

  • infantry 2013-03-14 08:34:38

    Lol. Textbook Blackdragon. I knew you'd jump on this one. My favourite part is your primary descriptor of Demi is "over 33". Everything here is spot on. The blatant unfairness of a multimillionaire going after her ex husband's lesser fortune shows quite clearly how broken the system is and how women will happily abuse it to cause financial harm to the men who 'hurt them' emotionally. Weak.

  • Jon 2013-03-14 08:36:54

    The other thing that is ridiculous about Demi's alimony demands is that they were only married six years. Short term marriages qualify for alimony now? You're so right about women wanting to have it both ways. My ex actually threw a temper tantrum when I encouraged her to get a job at one point in our marriage. However, during the divorce that turned into "I gave up having a career for you..." I understand it now, but at the time it blew my mind that someone could say something so ridiculous and actually believe it.

  • maldek 2013-03-14 09:09:16

    "Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?" It is. Example. Housewife, 3 kids, big house, garden, dogs etc. Needs maid 12 hours a week on top of her own work to get everyting done. If said SAHM would now work 4 hours a day, it would result in a) lower quality of household work or b) extra hours per week for the maid. The only profitable option would be if the income of wife is higher than the cost of maid including all taxes. Most women will not be able to get a positive ROI here. Not even counting possible problems with kids, sex life, marriage if the women has to endure a certain stress level. Women tend to greatly underperform if put under stress. Conclusion: I consider the SAHM to be the best solution to raise children. Raising children beeing the only viable reason to marry in the first place. That said: Alimony can be avoided like you said. Or, even better, if you live an international lifestyle and most of your income is worldwide income, well hidden in off-shore trust or corporations. It is only the sheople on fixed monthly incomes who can be taxed heavily and enslaved with laws - the self-employed person has a 1000times more options.

  • Blackdragon 2013-03-14 10:32:17

    Dan - Kevin Federline got millions of dollars in alimony from Britney Spears, so sometimes it can indeed backfire. (Though frankly I don't like that either.) Maldek - Alimony is fine as long as it's the result of a prenuptial agreement both parties agreed to prior to the marriage. If both parties agree and decide the woman should stay home and raise kids, and if a divorce occurs the husband will pay her X, that's fine. No problem with that whatsoever. The problem is when no agreement like that was ever made, and the wife suddenly does a money grab using the government as a weapon just because she's pissed off at ex-hubby. I'll say it again: Government-dictated alimony should be abolished. No woman (or man) has any right to it unless it was from a mutually consensual signed agreement prior to the marriage.

  • aneroidocean 2013-03-14 11:38:17

    I agree with you Blackdragon, although I will go further and say that child support is bullshit because it's labeled as "child support" yet there's almost ZERO standard for ANY oversight as to how the money is spent. Sure, if the person receiving child support (effectively women) is neglecting the kids badly enough that child services gets called it could become an issue, but for the most part, they are free to spend the money on fucking another man, getting drunk, gambling, WHATEVER. It's disgusting. If the focus is supposed to be on the kids, so should the use of the money that's being set aside for the kids.

  • Blackdragon 2013-03-14 11:55:17

    The problems with child support are a completely different topic that I'll make an article about soon. But yes, I agree with you.

  • Reed 2013-03-14 12:50:12

    "I’m going to say something that may surprise you: Demi Moore isn’t the problem. Demi Moore, and the millions of women like her, are the symptom and result of the problem. "The real problem is a culture and a government..." I don't think the culture and government are to blame here, either. I think it's LIFE that is responsible. The cultures and governments we see just are just reactions by people to life and the way it works. It's the same reason why many guys on this board, including myself, are divorced and have regrets regarding when/how we chose to get out of our marriages. I don't blame myself, though. At that age, it was all I knew and I made my decisions based on that. Same with government: at that point in time when these laws were passed, that's all the lawmakers knew and made their decisions the only way they knew how.

  • Blackdragon 2013-03-14 14:27:05

    Same with government: at that point in time when these laws were passed, that’s all the lawmakers knew and made their decisions the only way they knew how.
    But we all clearly know very differently now, and the laws haven't changed. That's the problem, and my point.

  • infantry 2013-03-14 20:20:07

    Agreed. The laws were put in place to protect women being abandoned in a completely different culture that no longer exists today. The courts will happily follow precedent until the end of time. The only way to change this is through legislation that is political suicide to enact.

  • Jack 2013-03-15 18:10:13

    Alimony is the product of two historical facts - both of which are false today: 1. When women weren't legally allowed to work, a divorce meant homelessness and starvation. This was also before we had a welfare system complete with food stamps and government housing. Due to the total absence of socialism, combined with a legal inability to work, alimony was the only way to keep women physically alive after their divorce. 2. When women weren't legally entitled to half of their ex-husband's property, alimony was their only option. Today, neither of the two apply. But the female man-haters neglected to abolish alimony when they were marching for so called "equality." Hmm, I wonder why, lol.

  • lifeofalovergirl 2013-03-20 08:29:55

    Men are always bitching about child support and alimony but neglect to mention the zillions of guys out there who get away without doing jack for their children at all. That would be the issue for the majority of single moms I know personally. They aren't getting ANYTHING in regards to child support. Many times they were never married to the guy in question or tried to get some child support out of him but he managed to dodge it. The reason the system is set up the way it is, is due to the fact that there are so many men who dodge responsibility when it comes to THEIR children. I was awarded alimony in court after the divorce. Not much, mind you, and I was told beforehand that it is extremely hard and almost impossible to get in this day and age. The only reason I did was because I was a full time stay at home mom for 13 years and also was homeschooling my children. You can put it down all day but the truth is that is just as much if not more work than going to an office all day and letting someone else do the nitty gritty work of taking care of your kids. It also set me back as far as getting work because I was 13 years with no resume, not to mention it would cost me more in childcare for all 5 of my children than I could make at most jobs I would qualify for, even using my Psychology degree. Not that the alimony is even enforced. My ex hasn't payed child support OR alimony in over 4 months and if I were to sick child support enforcement on him they would only go after the child support amount, not the alimony. I can't speak for other women but child support and alimony here (when I actually get it) goes to bills first and then the children's individual needs before my own. If we don't have a roof over our heads and electricity and food I can't really care for the children. I have to buy, for example, new shoes and jeans for my boys constantly because they tear them to shreds, yet my ex doesn't buy them anything like that. Yes, I think it's ridiculous when celebrities with boatloads of money and a full time job try to get alimony and it should never be awarded to them, but for regular people who need it to get by it's a different story.

  • lifeofalovergirl 2013-03-20 08:38:50

    Oh and the ability to get welfare help is way exaggerated. When I first got divorced and had ZERO income, and ZERO child support money coming in and five children to take care of, I wasn't even able to get any cash assistance because my ex was, per court agreement SUPPOSED to pay child support (even though he didn't for the first few months). I also couldn't get housing help and had to get help from relatives for a year and a half while on a waiting list. We were able to get food stamps and medical care,, so no we weren't starving (thankfully) and could go to the doctor in an emergency (well my kids, I still had a co-pay) but to act like the government covers everything for someone who is trying to get by is a myth that well off folks like to perpetuate so they can look down their noses at people. Without food or medical care, yeah we might not have made it. So yes we are better off than someone back in the day but it is still necessary to keep us alive and well.

  • Blackdragon 2013-03-20 09:49:52

    - I have said many times I support child support, and that men who refuse to pay child support for children they create are shitheads. Please don't act like I never said that when I know you know. If you're complaining that men should pay child support, you're barking up the wrong tree here; I already agree with that. - On the topic of alimony, which is different than child support, 13 years ago was 2000. In 2000 it was common knowledge even among very stupid people that the divorce rate was well over 50% and worsening. If under those conditions you voluntarily chose to get married, not work, and crank out five kids, while still not working that's on you. (Yes, you still deserve child support, just not alimony.) Your husband didn't put a gun to your head and force you to not work for 13 years, nor did he force you to have five kids instead of one or two. You CHOSE to do those things because you WANTED to. It was a lifestyle CHOICE you made. Part of being an adult is taking 100% responsibility for your stupid, irresponsible decisions. (Yes, you still deserve child support, just not alimony.) - On the topic of welfare, I clearly remember you saying you were still cranking out babies with this guy even when the marriage was clearly terrible and on its way out. I love how you leave that little tidbit of information out. In a free society, which this is not, hard-working taxpayers should not be forced at gunpoint to bail out people who make reckless and stupid decisions like that. I don't think you'd take too kindly to me if I blew all my money gambling on horses then had the government put a gun in your face to force you to help me pay my bills. Same applies here. (Yes, you still deserve child support, just not welfare.)

  • lifeofalovergirl 2013-03-20 10:23:21

    You are right that I chose that lifestyle, but my ex husband chose it right along with me. He chose to be the breadwinner while I stayed home with the children and we both agreed it was best, so he's as responsible for that decision as I am. I suppose you could consider my one and only daughter as the child I had when my marriage was clearly on its way out but that's the only one. I was leery of having another child and my ex was the one really pushing for it. Perhaps it was in a last ditch effort to save the marriage. In any case, I agree totally with you that the government shouldn't have to be responsible for that choice. Instead, her father should be paying child support and alimony. That's the point. No one else's taxes should have to be going to us, instead the father should be held responsible for at least half of our expenses, hence the need for child support and alimony because it alleviates the responsibility from the general population. I don't think I should be entitled to welfare but I do think I should be entitled to support from the man who made the choices along with me to get married and bring children into this world and for me to make homemaking and child rearing my full time job for such an extended period of time. During our marriage we avoided accepting government help because we felt it was OUR responsibility to care for ourselves and our children (and my ex is extremely politically conservative and anti- government intervention). We even avoided using the public school system (which is paid for by taxes just like any other form of welfare so if you use it you are just as guilty as someone who accepts food stamps or Medicaid or cash assistance). However, on my own with 5 children and no child support or alimony I couldn't make it and had no choice if I wanted to put food on the table and keep us all alive and well. The courts demanding child support and alimony are helping PREVENT government dependence and promoting personal responsibility, and that is why it is so important.

  • Blackdragon 2013-03-20 11:14:36

    You're mashing child support and alimony into the exact same category which is foolish. Further discussion with you on this would be a waste of my time.

  • lifeofalovergirl 2013-03-20 17:47:32

    Well, a lot of times they DO go hand in hand! Mine is even supposed to come as a lump sum through the family support agency. I had to sit there and try to figure out how much of what I received in 2012 was alimony and how much was child support in order to report it on my taxes (because alimony counts as unearned income and child support isn't even reported). In my case the alimony is about 22% of the total. The main difference is that the alimony is taxable and would end if I were to get remarried. Also, one of the main reasons the lawyer had me attempt to get alimony in the first place was because the amount my ex would be ordered to pay as child support was so ridiculously low due to his low paying job at the time of our divorce. In order to get more for the kids we had to go for "spousal support". Here is a link to the things they take into consideration when deciding if a spouse will receive support. As you can see it is supposed to take into consideration how well the spouse would be able to provide for themselves, so celebrities receiving alimony is ridiculous. They should have plenty of means to get by. I don't know what the heck is wrong with those judges but most likely they are getting paid off or something. Nowadays men can get alimony too, especially if they are the primary caregiver for the children, so it goes both ways really. I'm not opposed to that at all if he's actually been doing the work of taking care of the kids full time. Now I will say that I was quite surprised to find out that the Professor pays alimony to his ex wife. He was divorced a year after I was and they never had any kids together. She also worked outside the home. When they got divorced both of her children from a previous marriage were over 18. They also lived and got divorced here in the same city/county as I did. So I'm like wtf? I was told how difficult it is to get and that the only reason I qualified was because I had been the primary stay at home caregiver for over 10 years. Anyhow, he says in his case he just agreed to it because he didn't want the drama of going to court over their divorce. He was fine with giving her the house and paying her alimony because she made less money than he did. He doesn't mind paying it either. He says he puts it as the second priority right after his house payment. Now if every guy thought like that there wouldn't be any problems!! I was way too nice during the divorce trying to split everything evenly and fairly and now I'm kind of like for what?

  • Jon 2013-03-21 12:07:05

    Anyhow, he says in his case he just agreed to it because he didn’t want the drama of going to court over their divorce.
    Sounds like extortion to me...which is exactly the point Blackdragon was trying to make. She used the threat of the family court system to extract money she didn't need or deserve from her husband, and he gave in because he didn't want a fight - kind of like a business settling a frivolous lawsuit because they don't want to take a chance on a judge or jury. Of course, any guy that has to pay it has no one to blame but themselves. Just like women should know the risks of being a stay-at-home mom, men should know the risk they take when they sign a marriage license. Yes, some men receive alimony, but it's so rare that the argument is pretty weak. According to this article, men receiving alimony increased from 2.4% to 3.6% in 2006. Spousal support is hardly an issue that impacts both genders equally.

  • Jimmy 2013-03-25 12:47:07

    I used to think my wife was different, but then she did things I never NEVER thought she would do(not an affair). Now I'm realistic and I keep myself in a condition and situation where it wouldn't much effect me if we did get divorced(i.e. I can easily start over). She on the other hand can't and knows that (and I make sure she knows it, none of this "Stella gets her grove back" crap). I was 19 when we got married, it's been 10 years. I am so much wiser.

  • Trends Follow 2018-12-11 05:37:41

    Thank you Sharing NBA YoungBoy Net Worth