something secret

Unpopular opinion: As a feminist, I take absolutely no issue with gold diggers. As far as I'm concerned, the only grievance they commit is to not be honest about their motives with their chosen partner. People always forget that marriage is an archaic and largely outdated institution that has traditionally been about the acquisition and exchange of property and power between men. More so, women have been the tools of that transaction. Marriage existed solely to allow property to pass outside of a direct familial line. The idea of marriage for romantic love is a relatively new concept in mankind's history. So as far as I'm concerned, "gold diggers" are doing marriage "right". In a society that still largely sees women as transactional property, gold diggers are simply playing the system to their advantage; utilizing traditional practices as leverage against slightly more progressive but still outdated ideals. In 2013, women are still being told  that fin...

Marriage is a contract just like an other contract. When the terms of that contract are broken, the parties are entitled to either nullify the contract or renegotiate its terms. The only difference with marriage is that in addition to agreeing to financial terms (pre/post-nups) you are legally binding yourself to social terms like love and fidelity. People forget that the idea of marriage for romantic love is actually a very new concept. Way back when, people married not for love, but to ensure economic stability. Kingdoms were joined through marriage to forge political alliances; love had nothing to do with it. A "good husband" was one who could provide for his wife and family financially, because often, women were forbidden from providing for themselves. Women were encouraged to vie for the attention of the most successful man, because that was the only to ensure that their own financial futures were safe. But this is 2013. The "institution of marriage" as we know...