Skip to comments.CHILD SUPPORT As Theft (Disguised Alimony): The Feminist Idea Of Independence Is She Takes His Money
Posted on 01/20/2002 12:47:53 PM PST by DNA Rules
Tennis Lolita Anna Kournikova soaks her billionaire ex-husband for millions.
Not the real Anna Kournikova. But Lisa Bonder, who was Anna Kournikova before there was Anna Kournikova 20 years ago.
If you've read about Bonder's child-support fight with her husband-for-a-month billionaire Kirk Kerkorian and before her, Anna Nicole Smith's continuing travails over her deceased Methuselah of a husband you've been introduced to litigation's latest overcompensated victims: scorned women.
The current specimens all have ties to pro sports. But they're stark examples of a clogged legal system turning relationships into lifelong ATM machines for women. They're also excellent examples of the failure of feminism. In the end, these women achieve "independence" by using courts to mooch off men and the rest of society.
Whether it's Bonder-Kerkorian, Kelci Stringer, or even Juanita Jordan (soon to be ex-wife of Michael), these "disadvantaged" women are out for an unearned payday bigger than winning the lottery.
Tennis fans likely remember Lisa Kerkorian as Lisa Bonder, the '80s' sexy, tall blonde from Michigan, who hit pro tennis' top-10 rankings and dabbled in modeling and posters. Unlike Kournikova, she never achieved the crossover appeal outside the tennis world that garners the Russian tennis starlet an estimated $15 million per year in endorsement income. But Bonder did garner enough lucrative endorsements and tournament winnings to keep her in comfort.
She should be set for life, rather than seeking out, shacking up with, and shaking down a senior-citizen billionaire, Kerkorian.
Instead, Bonder, 36, had a multi-year affair with Kerkorian, 84, beginning in 1991. Does anyone believe a 26-year-old was truly interested in a 74-year-old? She was likely more interested in his billions. Kerkorian, the MGM studio and casino mogul worth over $6 billion, is so wealthy that he was the single-largest non-institutional stockholder in Chrysler and threatened a hostile takeover in the '90s.
But while he easily fought Chrysler's then-Chairman Lee Iaccoca, Kerkorian met his match in the scheming Bonder. He refused her constant begging for marriage so, in 1997, she got pregnant with his daughter. In a move to legitimize the child's birth, they married on the condition that she waive all spousal support and divorce a month later.
But Bonder found a way to get paid for this high-class prostitution act: child-support, perhaps the only reason she had this child with an 80-year-old. The prenuptial pact set per month support at $35,000, the divorce agreement specified $50,000 monthly, and Kerkorian has been voluntarily paying $75,000 per month for a 3-year-old! Not enough, says Bonder, who sued for $320,000 per month, claiming the young child needs $144,000 monthly for travel, $7,000 monthly for charity, and $102,000 monthly for food.
Bonder lives in three estates, worth a combined $26 million. Yet, she's using the legal system and her daughter to play the victim. That's the legacy of feminism: Even rich, "independent" women's sports stars resort to shacking up with octogenarians and suing them for a big payday.
Kelci Stringer is another "victim." It's lamentable her pro-football player husband, Korey Stringer, died in Minnesota Vikings training camp on a hot day. But, as a first-round draft pick and starter, he was well compensated and insured for risk of injury. Stringer was also paid his multi-million dollar salary to stay in shape. But he didn't getting fat over the off-season, dangerously trying to lose it and get in shape just a few days before camp.
But is that his fault? Not according to Mrs. Stringer's lawyers (and Jesse Jackson, who has surprise! interjected himself in this shakedown). They've filed a $100 million lawsuit against the Vikings. No matter that out-of-shape Stringer was up to a bloated 335-pounds. Newspaper photos showed him doubling over, gasping for breath during drills that in-shape athletes finessed.
Mrs. Stringer is a "victim," and instead of quietly dealing with her grief, everyone else must pay for this woman "scorned" by the Vikings. Costs of the suit will be passed on to Vikings' ticket-buying fans who, unlike wealthy Mrs. Stringer, are mostly working-class stiffs.
Don't feel sorry for Juanita Jordan divorcing wife of basketball great, Michael either. According to the New York Post, she put up with his affairs for years, tailing him with a private investigator.
What did she expect? Her own marriage was the result of a tawdry, litigious affair. She met Michael at Bennigan's restaurant in Chicago in 1988, got pregnant, gave birth and slapped him with a paternity suit. To avoid the suit, Michael whisked her off to a tacky Vegas quickie-wedding at the Little White Wedding Chapel in 1989. What an omen for the kind of smarmy marriage she'd have with a philandering sports star.
But even though she had prior warning and was an operative from the beginning in this questionable partnership, she could win 90 percent of the Jordans' property under Illinois law. Illinois is not a community-property state. Rather than splitting property 50-50, fault is a factor in deciding property division. Totally immoral, should Jordan's philandering, of which former groupie Juanita was well aware, entitle her to 90 percent of his worth? Is she really a victim? Under the law, yes.
The song, "The Sisters Are Doing it For Themselves," is bogus. Just look on the sports pages and the overburdened courthouses. For these newest Anna Nicole Smiths, The Sisters Are Suing it For Themselves. The litigation Lolitas will get their big payday in court.
Excuse me, she didn't get pregnant by herself. He did carry on a decade long affair with the woman. He could have broken up with her if she was scheming. It takes two to tangle. No 74 year old billionaire takes up with a 26 year old hottie because he thinks she is a great homemaker and no 26 year old hooks up with a 74 year old billionaire because they both like The BackStreet Boys.
Come May 1st, my son will be 18 and she can kiss my a$$.
If it sounds like I'm bitter, well I'm past that stage now(LOL)!!
They can take it all, but in the end they still remain frustrated, for as a phoenix we rise with our manhood intact once again to rebuild our lives, and that my friend is a mouthful.
Not all of us. Some family courts are prone to impose support orders not based on what a man earns, but on what the court thinks he should earn. Anyone who thinks the U.S. has done away with debtors prison should think again. This just might be a contributing factor in the 400% disparity between male and female suicide.
Highly PAID prostitution maybe. There's no CLASS to it!
To stop this outrage, men need to be willing to shoulder the responsibility for their children. Demand that your attorney seek at least joint custody. Then, in most states, the only child support you can be assessed is an equitable division of the child's costs based on income.
As to alimony, that's simply the same fee hookers are paid, with the government acting as pimp.
Wow... in Texas you can't have better than a 4yr old vehicle... or they'll rip all assistance; including the food stamps. I thought it was national regulation? Guess not.
Except you are paying them NOT to perform.(just like it was before the divorce:) )
Common sense tends to be confined to states like Texas (and Texas is the ONLY state that can claim to be "like Texas")
Holy cow! For your sake I wish it were May 1st today!!
Sue for full custody. If you don't think you can handle that, sue for joint custody (50%/50%).
Nobody pays anybody anything. You make an agreement of how to split major expenses such as medical, dental, orthadontia, and school clothes, supplies, and tuition. There is an agreement about who declares the child on their income tax. Sometimes this means you declare the child in alternate years. Of course you have to live near your ex souse -- probably in the same school district for this to work. And you have to remain on civil terms.
She could go through men like Kleenex, as long as her looks held out, though: She was short and busty, with long blonde hair and blue eyes which got brighter when she was screaming, which was often. She was extremely sexually aggressive with men. She was also a druggie, and she thought the world owed her a living.
A week after I got involved with the guy, she was trying to get ME to quit school and support her @ss through college... never mind that she had never so much as graduated from high school, but SHE was going to Stanford, whereas Cal State University was good enough for ME. Really amazing. Her favorite saying is, "You're ruining my life!"
Guys apparently thought they had found sexual nirvana, until they finally figured out how crazy and manipulative she was... or until she became pregnant. She was also very careless with the birth control, and apparently lots of men just don't ask about stuff like that. I know several men who got involved with her; none were ever the same afterwards--and not in a good way, I might add.
She was THE major factor in why I dumped that poor guy... I had no problems with the kid of hers he was raising, but I couldn't see putting up with HER until the kid turned 18. BTW, I'm still friends with the guy and the kid. He eventually married, I went to his wedding, and the ex was a thorn in the wife's side as well.
You guys who have problems with women like that--I have a lot of sympathy for you; but it also seems that men really go for women like that, at least until they know better. Women like that seem to be very successful with men. I don't know what is so great about women like that, but they never have any problem getting more suckers--er, I mean men...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.