Miss Gold-Digger of 1953

In the frivolous flapper days of blackmarket booze and short-skirted women, a man knew where he stood. It was the era of the catalogued woman. Career girls were uninhibited, wives were faithful, and alimony was reserved for the little floosies who periodically married and divorced millionaire playboys as carless with their lucre as their love.

Today, with taxes astronomical, both sexes Kinseyfied and all well-oiled millionaires holed up in Texas, alimony has gone democratic. In other words, it can happen to you too, brother.

The 1953 variety gold-digger may be a chorus cutie or she may be Miss Plain Jane from across the street. All American womanhood has descended on alimony as a natural heritage.

A young couple gets married. They're in love, or think they are, but for one reason or another the marriage doesn't work. Maybe it's the guy's fault; maybe it's the girl's Could be neither one is to blame -- just two nice people who aren't really suited for one another.

You might assume that having discovered their mistake, a couple could successfully call it quits, no strings attached, and try to find happiness elsewhere. 'Tain't so.

When the time comes for going their separate ways, the young lady may, if she is so inclined, stick her ex-spouse for a healthy chunk of his earnings from that day forward, for the rest of his unnatural life.

The whole concept of alimony is a throwback to the days when grandma was a girl. A couple of generations ago, this was a man's world, and a nice young woman without a husband had a difficult time making her own way. Nothing could be further from the truth in 1953.

Even the simplest wench can make a handsome living today. And if she wants another husband, the divorcee has a better chance of landing a man than her less worldly-wise, unmarried sister.

Don't mistake alimony for child support. Alimony is an allowance -- usually substantial -- given to the ex-wife by her ex-husband to maintain her in a style to which she would like to become accustomed. Child support is awarded where minor children are unfortunate victims of the adults' mistake. Off spring are considered wards of the court and payments are ordered until they become of age -- whether the kids are as mercenary as their mommies or not. Few fathers object to supporting their children, but supporting an ex-wife is like buying oats for a dead horse. The marriage has ended. The unhappy stag is entitled to none of the privileges of a husband, but he's expected to pay for them as if he were.

While the divorce or suit for separate maintenance is pending, he money awarded is laughingly termed "temporary alimony." The laughter is usually one-sided and soprano, since many judges use this "temporary" figure as a basis for the all too permanent settlement.

It doesn't matter who is to blame for the marriage going on the rocks. The wife may be a trollop with the disconcerting habit of crawling in and out of bed with the husband's friends. She may be a spendthrift whose expensive tastes he cannot afford. No matter. When the judge grants the divorce, he will also grant the little missus a healthy stipend for future escapades and extravagances.

Nor is modern alimony merely a matter of principal. For many men it is a serious question of economic survival.

A young TV director was overpowered by a 37" 25" 37" brunette early in his career and happily exchanged the vows that were to guarantee a lifetime of marital bliss. Five years later, his 37" 30" 37" wife sued for divorce. In claiming her severance pay, she explained that she had inspired her husband, contributing nightly to whatever success he now enjoyed.

The judge listened to this tender American love story and ordered the defendant to fork over 50% of his present salary -- plus 50% of whatever he earned in the future. The man was professionally whipped. As he told reporters afterward, "What good does it do me to work? She'll get half of everything I ever make. The harder I try to make something for myself, the more I'll have to kick through to her."

In one Chicago divorce court, the judge takes a pad and pencil with him to the bench. An alimony "hearing" consists of asking the husband what he earns, taking half of it and, unless the man is supporting an aged mother and has three mortgages on his house, giving it to the woman.

The rich and the poor -- all get their equal chance before the alimony bar of justice. And the less a man makes, the deadlier alimony becomes.

In one court, a truck driver was brought in for falling behind in his payments. He explained to the judge that he had remarried and that he and his second wife had been blessed with a child. "How can I support two families on my Gold-Digger --continued salary, your honor?" he asked.

The sentimental old magistrate explained that that was the truck driver's problem. The alimony payments were set by court order and if he failed to meet them, he would receive a six month jail sentence for contempt of court. Actually that would have been a light sentence for the amount of contempt the man probably felt for this particular court.

In another recent trial, a wife asked for an allotment that exceeded what her ex-husband was earning. The man pointed out this rather pertinent fact to the judge, explaining that his income was low because he was just starting out as a salesman on straight commission. The defendant was willing to sacrifice initial pay because he believed the job had a future.

The judge was unimpressed. He ordered the man to "stop fooling around and get a regular job."

Alimony, obviously, is based less on the actual needs of the woman than on what she feels she deserves. One state supreme court ruling put it this way: "Alimony is measured by the wants of the person entitled to it and the circumstances and ability of the man to pay it." And most courts seem to place the ex-wife's "wants" considerably ahead of the ex-husband's "circumstances and ability to pay."

The courts aren't interested in whether a woman is capable of earning her own living. In fact, their decisions discourage any thoughts an ex-missus may have of returning to work. They penalize the girl who is willing to earn her own way by reducing or eliminating her alimony payments. It doesn't take a very sharp sister to figure it's a lot easier to stay home afternoons and play Scrabble with the girls and let the ex-hubby pay the bills.

Nor will a guy necessarily get off with returning the girl to the sort of life she was used to before she hooked him. He is expected to maintain her in circumstances similar to those she enjoyed as his mate. This questionable concept is behind most of the larger alimony settlements and you'll find dozens of examples in the files of most of the divorce courts of the nation.

Take the case of the wealthy furniture manufacturer. He married his eager, 26-year-old secretary. The marriage lasted exactly three months. But when the little lady came into court, her lawyer based his alimony claim on the standard of living she had enjoyed as the rich man's wife.

"Look at this girl, your honor," the lawyer pleaded, and that's just exactly what the judge was doing. "Must she go back to riding the bus, when he rides in his Cadillac? Is she supposed to live in a room in the home of her father while he struts about his mansion?"

The judge might have reasonably asked, "Why not?" and questioned what had transpired in the last three months to warrant any different decision. But logic sometimes gets mislaid in moments like this, especially when the lady is a full-busted blonde in a low cut dress and the judge is on a very high bench looking down.

Those three months of marital bliss cost the furniture manufacturer $750 a month, for life -- or until the sweet little secretary hooked another fish.

What makes such fantastic decisions possible? The primary reason is simple -- there are very few actual laws regulating alimony Most states don't have statutes that set requirements for alimony payments. That leaves each case in the hands of the presiding judge.

As a result, all the personal factors that can sway a judge are discreetly brought into play by the wife and her attorney. And after reviewing a number of the court decisions, one wonders whether some of the ex-wives didn't show up for the proceedings wearing bathing suits.

Each state's alimony statutes vary just as their divorce laws do. Some states, like Minnesota, set an alimony ceiling at half the man's income. In Louisiana, it is a third. New Hampshire has a time limit of three years on alimony payments, but this is renewable if the woman can show "good cause."

In Indiana alimony is set at a specific figure that can be paid off in installments. Here, at least, a man knows there is an ultimate end to the payments.

Pennsylvania awards only temporary alimony -- no permanent payments. A man pays only while the divorce is pending; once the decree is granted, his obligations to the woman cease. The Pennsylvania legislature has taken the logical stand that a man's duty to support a woman is a part of the marriage contract, and that it ceases when the marriage does.

A few judges have pulled switcheroos and displayed an uncommonly rich sense of humor by awarding alimony to the husbands. If they do nothing else, such decisions help to point up the absurdity of the entire alimony concept.

There's no denying, eliminating alimony would sharply reduce the legalized prostitution now popular among certain segments of our population. Few sweet-and-lovelies would marry middle-aged playboys if they couldn't brush them in a year or two and live happily ever after on the alimony checks.

The alimony deck is heavily stacked against any man in the game. There are, however, a few tricks worth knowing about. Some husbands, anticipating disaster, assemble their meager belongings (including unwashed socks and dogeared marriage manuals) and beat it out of town. While the surprised wife can get her divorce in an uncontested hearing, she cannot obtain alimony unless her departed swain is served notice of the court hearings personally. If he's rafting down the Rio Grande, he can be a very difficult guy to serve.

Another stratagem was employed by a Detroit executive who offered his ex-wife a tempting $1,000 bonus if she remarried within five years, thus ending his obligation to her. He assumed she would prefer to better her alimony potential with a less worldly but more wealthy second spouse, and that the bonus would prompt her to quicker action. He was right. Two weeks before the deadline, she remarried, and when hubby number two was looking the other way, she slipped the grand under her garter.

More courageous husbands promise hectic, headline-making court fights. Few wives care to have their dirty linen washed in public and if the man is willing to go through the ordeal, or even threatens to, he's apt to get a squarer alimony shake. He may even be able to trade a quick, quiet divorce for an alimony waiver. Once waived, alimony can never be reclaimed.

Obviously, however, a man isn't going to get a really square deal in the diorce courts until the alimony laws of the nation have been completely overhauled. Till then, it's important to remember that the modern gold digger comes in a variety of shapes and sizes. She's after the wealthy playboys, but she may also be after you.