May Day Money

Wife has 800,000 secrets

Well, the secrets are all the same, and until recently they resided quite privately in the wife's personal bank account.  Until the bank called the husband and suggested that he move the money to a different account.  

Here's the back story:  A wife had $800,000 that was not earned during the marriage, and kept it in a bank account in her name only.  Since the money wasn't earned during the marriage, it is not considered marital property.  She decided to keep the money a secret from her husband, who apparently had spending problems.  Well, the bank called their residence, and spoke to the husband about this sum of money and suggested he move it to a different account.  The wife is now suing the bank for disclosing that information to someone whose name was not on the account, and claims she paid her husband $155,000 to keep the marriage intact and reestablish marital bliss in the home.   She is suing the bank for this amount that she paid her husband for their (illegal) disclosure. 

The link above provides two viewpoints:  the gentleman on CNN says that it was wrong for the wife to keep such a huge secret.  The lady says that it's the woman's business since the money was earned outside the marriage, and the bank did break the rules.  They both agree on the legal aspects of the issue (i.e., it's the woman's money only) but then argue about the disclosure of the money between them. 

We do not know where the money came from, just that it came from before they were married.  Two women called into the CNN show and defended the wife's actions.  Unfortunately, no men called in to weigh their opinion on the matter. 

I have a few thoughts on this matter, of course.  One is that I think it's interesting the man got in a huff that this now-rich wife, who apparently has the upper hand in the financial aspects of the marriage, did not disclose her financial status.  He doesn't even change his mind when we find out that the husband has a history of spending problems.  Look:  For whatever reason they got married, I bet she had a good reason to keep her stash to herself.  

Let's say that the money was from her own personal business earnings.  Perhaps it was a life insurance policy.  Or an inheritance.  Whatever it is.  If you were dating around and had this huge amount of cash on hand, would you really want that person to know about your financial statements?  Personally, if I were in that position, I'd rather men think that I'm a poor typist than someone who has plenty of disposable cash on hand.  It's mean, but I think I'd keep lots of secrets about my life until I knew I could trust them and they weren't hounding for a booty call or some of my money.  Money talks, even if it's not yours.  

My second thought is that there is a disparity in this country about who has the financial upper hand in a marriage.  Most of the time, in married situations, the woman does earn less, or stays at home.  She has her own responsibilities in the marriage.  And oftentimes, people get the impression that if a woman earns the household moola or has more assets to her name than the husband, there's something wrong with the guy:  He's lazy.  He's a mama's boy.  He has no ambition.  He's a loser.  He's not man enough.  The concrete reasons are murky, and the discrimination blunt and unfair, but the name-calling remains.  

I think this guy from CNN felt indirectly threatened by the wife's financial power, and maybe even a little offended that she'd keep a secret like that, even though I think her reasons are completely justified:  The wife had to PAY OFF THE HUSBAND to maintain marital peace after the money was discovered.  Doesn't that explain something to us?  If the husband found out, he shouldn't be demanding his wife's money.  Maybe he has the privilege to demand why she hid it, or where she got it, but the wife knew the only way he'd shut up was to get 155k.  I bet you that money has already been spent by the husband.

I'd like to shake this woman's hand.  Good for her that she kept her property separate from this jerk.  It sounds like she had a good reason (or 800k of them) too.  I know that keeping secrets, at least in the Christian marriage tradition, is frowned upon and shouldn't be done.  But the reasons she married the guy and kept the money secret are her own decisions, and considering she had this huge lump sum of money that she was SAVING, not spending, probably reflects her financial responsibility better than the husband's likely squirrely spending habits.  And even if she wanted to spend that money to create more income for herself, that additional income may have been considered marital property, and could have created even more of a mess. 

She wasn't pilfering any of the marital property for her own gain.  Sounds like the husband got away with that, though.  

Who is Ashley Madison?

If anyone can tell me who she is, I'd be indebted. I'd like to know why this muse has been the inspiration for a website called ashleymadison.com, "Where Monogamy becomes Monotony."

Recently, on CNN.com, a billboard ad featuring the words "Life is short... have an affair" has been the ire of Dr. Phil, Christian groups, and the target of many reporters grilling the controversial website spokesman for why they would encourage such a destructive act that destroys couples and families.

I decided to check out the site for myself. Surely this site was not advertising what we assumed it was - paying your way to an extramarital or open relationship with other like-minded husbands, wives or singletons. Was it true?

Unfortunately, it was true, and then some. An article called "The Myth of Monogamy" by David Barash, a psychology professor in Seattle, outlines the very reasons that humans, by nature, are being pressed by society to practice in something that is against our very nature. To sum up, humans are not meant to be monogamous. Like the female barn swallow who seeks out the male swallow with the deepest forked tail as an ideal mate, there is scientific proof that the female will "sneak copulations" with a male barn swallow whose tail has been artificially forked by researchers. There are several other species, and most of all of humans, who show that within their own respective societies that these kinds of open relationships or multiple marriages (usually, one man to several women) are freely practiced.

I am first of all surprised that I'd accept being compared to a barn swallow, especially in my regards to my sexual tendencies. The gentleman writing this article has first reduced humanity to a collective of high-minded animals who should be submitting to their basest, "natural" instincts. As a human who is capable of hatred, love, revenge or charity, I highly doubt that this kind of "natural" action would be accepted by the millions of people who have claimed to find their soul mate. It sounds like a contradiction, does it not? I find even more humorous that this kind of "evolution" should be embraced, the fact that humanity must "evolve" to accept this kind of natural behavior. Wait a minute. Last time, I heard that scientific evidence pointed to us evolving from apes. If we are returning to our natural state, isn't that called "devolution?" Isn't that a return to our natural, basest form? Why would this be called evolution if we were going BACK to our natural selves, and not TOWARDS a more refined, learned human state. That is confusing.

Ah, but it gets dicey. I started reading the comments from real-time users of AM, of course mostly anonymous, and found some interesting tidbits. People stuck in loveless, abusive marriages. Couples enlisting at the site in attempts at "open relationships." Women and men lamenting that the spark was gone from their marriage, and finding down-to-earth people at AM. Then I saw the words "soul mate" and "marriage" pop up in these comments. Then again, and again, and again. These people were finding the person they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with. Wait a minute... what kind of tool is this? One woman suggested it was the best way to help men avoid resorting to prostitution, even though she claimed to be in a secure, loving, monogamous relationship.

So what kind of tool is AM, and what language is it speaking to this society of monogamy-centered people? Most have found their soul mate on AM, a direct contradiction to the claim of "social justice" that it aims to promote. Soul mate finder? Prostitution preventer? A simple social network of people looking for others who want sex? Ah. There are many of those kinds of social networks, but few that actually ask you to consider finding a spark with another human outside of the confines of marriage, to find the feelings of those raging hormones you felt when you met your husband or wife and now have been dulled over the years of monotonous marriage.

Perhaps AM is not the crux of the problem, although I do find it extremely troubling and lacking of tact or respect for those who do find marriage rewarding, liberating and yes, even sexy. Perhaps the crux of the problem is in the individual, the person who accepts marriage before they are ready, who accepts marriage for all the wrong reasons, the person who succumbed to the pressure of being married for the sake of it, for acceptance. The beauty of being a Christian is that some of us can be called to a life of being single. It is not a sin not to marry. Marriage carries responsibility, and this day and age, it's a tool for too many wrong reasons: power, money, social acceptance.

As I said, I find it troubling that we are being invited by some to return to our basest, most "natural" roots by finding the joys and liberation of being in open relationships or feeling the exhilaration of risk by cheating behind the backs of our spouses. Indeed, I feel it is the devolution of humanity to promote this kind of activity, a push backwards away from the capabilities of our beautiful ability to be educated and explore the world in ways we have not discovered yet. I do not envy those stuck in a horrible, abusive or unloving marriage; these days, it has been made legal to leave an abusive relationship, which is necessary. But for those who just want to get the rush, to feel the hormone-intense adrenaline rush of an extramarital affair, I ask: why use marriage as your own tool for your own selfish needs?

So, Ashley Madison. Whether you're a true-to-life mistress or simply a made-up moniker, you have been a tool for creating quite the titter-tatter among Americans who cluck their righteous tongues at your silly, derogatory website. Yet, I feel very strongly, we have a duty - as Americans, as Christians or as just plain humans - to yet again point the finger at ourselves and find how we can individually address this kind of behavior.