The Swedish Countess' divorce is all about money, sex, power, control

In her latest Page Six expose, Swedish Countess Marie Douglas reveals that her husband used his money to control her and trap her in a wealthy, lonely “gilded” cage. She complains that he spent upwards of $200,000 per week on her to purchase designer handbags and fur coats. But he withheld ever really giving her anything outright, always holding back “title” even to her engagement ring. In fact, he admitted on the stand that he always told her that her $190,000 engagement ring was “constructively hers.” What does that mean? You know?
I said back in December that he seemed to use his money as a dangling carrot at her and I am probably right. http://www.divorcesaloon.com/the-countess-v-the-ceo-part-deux. I mean, I’ve shifted my position on some of what I said in that post in that now I feel that they should enforce the post-nup and that she should take the $43 million he offered (but in cash, not stock) and he should give her all her jewelry including her engagement ring, and call it a day. As opposed to back in December when I said that he should also give her the apartment overlooking the Park. But now, I don’t think so. I’ve changed my mind. It was only a six year marriage that was in trouble after two years when she began to cheat on him with a young buck in Sweden. And he was also cheating on her. So this was not a healthy marriage with two people trying to build a viable partnership from the get go and I think the $43 million is fair under these circumstances. More than fair.
I have also expressed that I fear her lawyers are leading her astray and are opening her up to the possibility that the judge will void the post nup, but then give Marie less than the post nup would have given her and tell her to find work, to go back to being a financial analyst like she was at Lazard Freres. That could happen….
But the takeaway from the David divorce is that money, sex and power and control issues can really bust up a union — especially one that was shaky to start. I mean, Marie seemed to use her attractiveness as bait and George seemed to respond in kind by showering her with cash and gifts. They both exerted their power and control over each other but in different ways.
Ultimately, though, money talks. Money dominates over sex, which is just a derivative fringe benefit of money in the final analysis. And George was the one with the purse string so he is the one with the ultimate power. He could easily replace Marie with an even younger, blonder trophy who was even more beguiling; but she couldn’t as easily replace him with another generous sugar daddy type–especially not after this messy divorce. Rich men are going to be on guard against her now and I suspect she has really done herself in as far as another rich hubby goes. This divorce is really her monetary loss at the end of the day. Sorry, but in this regard, nature is definitely stacked in favor of the male species. Check out all these related posts here: http://www.divorcesaloon.com/index.php?s=loses+a+husband
Are these issues in “regular” marriages? I am sure they are. On a smaller scale. I have always believed that whomever holds the purse controls the relationship and often engages in controlling behavior in the relationship, and that is usually going to be the man–even if the wife makes more money than he does. And I think that nature has stacked it in such a way that if someone is going to use “sex” as a method of control in a relationship, it’s going to be the woman.
I also think that whenever you have power struggles and control issues (whether overt or covert) in a relationship, the relationship is probably not going to survive. Or if it does, you will tend to have two very unhappy people. So I guess couples need to be mindful about these stereotypical gender roles and not allow money, sex and power/control issues to so poison their relationship that all they can do in the end is file for divorce.
http://www.divorcesaloon.com/index.php?s=countess