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.
Well im actually from OZ so i wouldn't have a clue about the US and i'm not too sure about OZ either..... i think they do....... it is a contract after all......
Hell!!! with all the STD's floating around, its definetely worth planning (this mainly applies to the one-nighters tho)....... BUT this applies to women too.... not just men..... it seems that its always the man who has to practice "safe sex" or whatever u want to call it..... how about the women? It takes TWO to tango....
Fathers that chose to quit supporting their children because they don't like what a woman does with the money are still throwing their children to the wind. The children know and will always remember that their father did not care enough for them to see that funds were provided for their care. A horrible thing for children to learn and this is totally in the hands of the father to control.
I also know from experience since I never got funds for my child. My ex even laughed about the ruses that could be used to avoid paying support.
*chuckle* Did you hear the screams down here when the "welfare-to-work" program went into effect?
Texas has gotten tough with the "welfare-to-work" program. You have 2 yrs to get it together before they kick you off. You can file again after a certain period of time... but I think there's a maximum of 5 yrs total lifetime assistance. You'd have to prove to be permanently disabled, to get any leeway or exception. No more generational welfare recipients! (not that some won't try to find "creative" ways to fool the State) :)
Yes, it does take two to tango. But in my experience, and in the experience of most of the other men and women I've talked with, a lot of men leave it all up to the women. That's why it was such a surprise to know two men who actually bought condoms and used them without being asked.
Well im actually from OZ so i wouldn't have a clue about the US and i'm not too sure about OZ either..... i think they do....... it is a contract after all......
To what country are you referring when you say "OZ"? Or are you referring to Kansas?
I have heard that sometimes prenups stand up in court and sometimes they do not.
interesting that u say that........ I guess alot of nations could be classified as third world when compared to the US (in economic terms at least), but heres some interesting facts..... i can't remember the correct figures but the divorce rates in the US, Australia, Britain and a few other Western nations were a hell-of-alot higher then the "third world" nations, in some cases almost double..... maybe having nothing (economically) makes these people realise that money aint everything.... the people around you are...........
Yes, I have heard that from a friend of mine who was born in New Zealand but had lived in Australia for a time. He has commented that people in the States, in his experience, tend to treat each other more like commodities, and to be less loyal to each other, than in NZ or Australia. Since I have not lived there, I can't compare directly.
Some people claim that the greater economic independence of women in the West has contributed quite a bit to the higher divorce rates. I can believe it. One of the reasons I decided, early on in life, to get job skills was that I didn't want to emulate the marriage nightmare that my parents created. I didn't want to have to put up with a lot of emotional nightmare crap just because I was financially dependent on a husband who turned out to be like my father. So were I ever to marry, it probably would not be for money. LOL.
Now since im from a country that could be classified as third world (well my parents are anyway, but they brought their way of life with them, and passed it on to me), i can tell u that their tends to be more of a family bond in these "third world" families than in most western families (please excuse the classifications, i can't think of a better way)..... this is what i believe contributes to the lower divorce rates in non-western nations.......... There just seems to be a greater sense of "community" in these "third world" people.......
Some of those nations also practice arranged marriages, which may have longevity going for them, but I don't think it would go over very well in the West. At least, most people I know whose families have been here for several generations or more are horrified by the practice.
i may be wrong but this is what i've seen with my own two eyes so, thats all i can really base this on.....
It would be interesting to see how Westernized your family would be here after several generations... to see how closely they stayed with the cultural attributes which they brought with them.
I work for an Armenian guy, and used to live in a part of L.A. County which was heavily populated by Armenians. Some of them still do the arranged marriage thing. A couple of young Armenian women have told me that they are expected to obey the man they marry.
But my boss's sister is a sort of maverick in her family... Although they are first-generation immigrants, his sister married not an Armenian but a Filipino man, divorced him, and later lived with an Armenian guy without being married to him. And although she sends her kids to an Armenian school because she doesn't want them to become "too Americanized," in truth she is doing a lot of things just like an American woman, and in another couple of generations, her descendants may be indistinguishable from other assimilated Americans.
It's true that most American women don't expect to obey a man, as women did some generations back. I sure as heck know the difference between cooperation and obedience, and I would expect a man to know it too. Maybe that's too "uppity" for some men. But I will never marry someone jsut so I can have a roof over my head... the non-financial cost is too high, IMO.
Just a few more comments, my ex has never let me have a relationship with my son. That was my punishment for not sticking with her. None of the fathers are allowed to see their kids. My ex moved every 6 months and from state to state. To this day she still uses her Mother's address. She pays the first,last month rent and security, lets it run out and it ussally takes about 6 mos. before she can get evicted.
Courts, for the most part they are a joke. I brought her to court a half dozen times getting court orders to see my kid. Literally tens of thousands of dolllars spent. The nut is in Florida now. I'm in NY.
She has had me arrested for assult. Threateened to kill me in my sleep. Had my best friend arrested. His Mom arrested.
When I did have visitation, my son went home with a rug burn on his back. Child welfare investigated it as sexual abuse.
I could write a book. May 1st, She can, in the words of John Moran," Kiss my royal irish a$$.
As for my son going to college, ha, he was never made to go to school, He is 17 still in 9th grade. Lazy, just like his MOM.
You are not allowed to write a prenup which covers the really important issues: custody, child support and separation of marital property. Prenups only cover assets owned going into the marriage. Even then, judges often ignore them.
On the other hand, my father actually did beat my mother, and after she left, never paid a dime of child support and rarely visited me (he was a druggie.) So I don't believe that All Women Are Ee-vil. But some are, that's certain.
I agree, enough people don't take marriage seriously and the law is way too deep into it, but how do you eliminate that when people can't get along with each other during a divorce, and even with prenups, constantly challenge them when a marriage is finally over?
The topics included in the seminar included how to dress, where to find rich men, how to decide if you want to divorce him, and what to do if you decide to stay married. Charming, eh?
I wrote back, asking to be taken off the list, and asking how this was any different from outright prostitution? If women want an income equal to men's, they can go out and earn one just like men's income. Or, if they want to be a stay-at-home spouse, they can do that too.
But they can't have it both ways--or, IMO, they should not be able to have their cake and eat it too.
It's always better for people to settle their own conflicts but sometimes during a divorce, one is too hurt and bitter, so maybe it would be best to do everything up front. That way if a man promises a woman he will always take care of her and wants her to stay home with the kids, it would be in writing.
If they can do that. I think prenuptials would actually be a way to avoid lawyers and courts later. Before you marry, it would be better for each to have a clear understanding of each other's expectations about the wife working or what happens in the case of adultery etc from either party. In a way it sounds cynical but the way things are now isn't very good for any kids involved. Only the lawyers benefit.
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.