Monday, February 26, 2007

Suze Orman in Oprah Magazine

I was reading through a copy of the Oprah magazine someone left at the local laundry, and as I was browsing through it, in between the old fat naked ugly women (two instances – one in a Dove ad and one in another ad) and Dr. Phil, one name struck my eye… Suze Orman. Apparently she has a column in that rag, and I’ve heard her name before, spoken with reverence and an acknowledgment that she’s a good money advisor. I think she’s on TV too.

In any case, the first letter was a real eye opener – it was about this woman who wants to get married to her boyfriend, but can’t stand the thought that his money may not be in her clutches. So she writes to Oprah magazine about it. I’m typing it all up here, so do read it all.

Dear Suze, I am living with a man who’s worth more than a million dollars. When we started dating, I jokingly told him that if we ever got married and didn’t work out, all I wanted was a plane ticket home. Well, now we’re talking about a prenuptial agreement, and he keeps bringing up that comment. His son wants everything written down so that if his father dies or we get divorced, my children and I wouldn’t get a cent. My kids are grown up, but I need to be able to support myself – as far as money goes, I’ve got nothing to bring to the table. My boyfriend said that I could live in his home, and his son would dole out cash as I need it. What should I do?
Just look at the whore. She starts off with the biggest reason for her involvement with this man, i.e. his net worth, and dismisses the comment that probably warmed the boyfriend’s heart and made him think she’s not a gold-digger – dismisses it as a bloody joke. Now of course she is at wits’ end, thinking that she should be able to sink her claws into his estate with impunity and is shocked that he isn’t letting her. She is bringing nothing to the marriage except the promise of sex, and wants everything in return. Hell, the independent liberated woman she is, she’ll probably call the cops for marital rape if he puts the moves on her when she isn’t in the mood (read: she is thinking about how its his bank account not theirs/hers.)
Suze’s reply:
This situation is no joke. With your boyfriend hiding behind your tongue-in-cheek comment for protection, I’m not sure this relationship is going to fly. What kind of man would want his wife to answer to his son for money? If your boyfriend continues to put his son’s desires ahead of yours, you need to seriously consider whether he’s the right man for you. Make it clear that you respect his right to leave everything he accumulated before marrying you to his son, but acknowledge in the prenup that assets and debts accrued during marriage would be split evenly.

I also want you and your lawyer (no mention of the would-be hubby?) to discuss setting up a life estate on the house. [Blah blah blah…]

Now if your husband balks at any of this, I think you should run. When a person can’t share his financial life, I question his ability to share his heart. The way we handle money is a manifestation of who we are inside, and how he approaches the topic signifies his love and respect for you. Without those two ingredients, you shouldn’t be considering a walk down the aisle.
Its very interesting – she also dismisses the comment as tongue-in-cheek, when the woman saw fit to include it in so many words in a one-paragraph letter to her. If the comment was that irrelevant, she wouldn’t have included it in the letter, right? The second sentence begins with the shaming language [What kind of man… not a real man that’s who] and I lost my respect for her advice at that point.

Suze also says that the prenup should allow for him leaving everything he has accumulated so far, but then says that anything accumulated during the marriage would be open season – i.e. he keeps earning, she keeps on doing whatever she was doing to have a $0 net worth until now, and surely the Nordstrom’s credit card debt will go to him and the house to her.

Her last paragraph was also cruel – she doesn’t say anything about this whore who isn’t bringing anything to the table in terms of finances and what this says about her personality and who she is, but jumps on the boyfriend for not carelessly entering into a game where the table is stacked against him in every fashion.I also did a google search on her, and found this on wikipedia…

Orman told The New York Times magazine in February 2007 that she is lesbian. Her partner of seven years is Kathy Travis, a coproducer on The Suze Orman Show. Orman has bemoaned the fact that she could not marry her partner and gain the corresponding tax advantages.


  1. When a person can’t share his financial life, I question his ability to share his heart.

    With the quote above, you are simply telling people that love=money. I mean, we all know women RARELY marry down, so that would leave men to burden the financial sharing. So, the truth is out of the bag now, Suze. Women ARE basicaly whores.

  2. Suze also says that the prenup should allow for him leaving everything he has accumulated so far, but then says that anything accumulated during the marriage would be open season

    So, in other words, she should be paid by him to be with him.

    Sounds like a whore to me.

  3. Agreed. Let's call a spade a spade, and a whore a whore.

  4. The only difference is that one type of whoring is legal and celebrated, the other is reviled and pushed underground. Sadly, it is the honest type which suffers.

  5. Actually, I erred. Women who maried aren't whores. At least with traditional whores, you actually GET something in return for your hard work. In marriage, there is -0- reward. Even sex becomes nonexistent.

  6. In most states, I believe one cannot 'prenup' out of money earned during the marriage. All a prenup can do is protect pre-nuptial property, and it doesn't do a very good job of it.

    (Note: in Mexico, while there is some protection in a man's estate for his widow's care, ala our dower rights, in general, they have a thing called separate properties, which is part of the written marriage contract. This does indeed protect earnings during the marriage. States differ, but I think I saw one state law which said a widow had rights to 1/5 of a man's estate. Also, a woman who lives in a man's house as his concubine [I love that word] for over 5 years also is entitled to that 1/5 of his estate.)

    The most common user of prenups in most US states are RICH WOMEN who want to protect their own property. it is lawyers who have said that.

    And, in most states, a judge has the right to break the prenup if he thinks it is necessary in the name of justice.

    So, don't trust prenups. Now now. Not ever. No judge is going to let a rich man give a woman a plane ticket and send her home when they breakup. Period.

    Yet, her fake reasonable attitude towards his property is probably the reason he is contemplating marrying her. What a fiend!

    I hope for his sake the fiend does decide to dump him because she can't get his money.

    Riddle: does anyone here believe she would be considering marriage to a man with $500 in the bank? (This is called a rhetorical question.)
    Gosh, I forgot what happened in 1975 when I married my wife. She fussed that she was used to managing her own money, and didn't want to have to ask me when she spent some of the money she earned. I told her I had similar concerns, and found it totally reasonable that we keep our accounts separate, and each write checks when there were bills to be paid.

    I did issue a warning: The first time I had to help her out of a mess, I took charge of the money. (It worked out well. We fought about everything else, but we never fought about money.)

    As soon as the fiends at work discovered I wasn't turning over all my money to her, the attack started: "YOU MUST NOT LOVE YOUR WIFE."

    I responded with the football time-out signal with my hands. "Time-out! I am not the one who is confusing money with love." That usually ended the conversation.

    Anonymous age 64