The trophy wives are on their way out in London. Thousands of jobs have been lost in the city's financial districts and rumors are flying that dozens more are on the way. The result? A trophy wife exodus.

Sandra Davis of Mishcon de Reya — the law firm formerly known as "Heather Mills' lawyers" — says that since the layoffs have started the number of inquiries about divorce and division of assets has tripled. "When money looks like [it's] flying out the window, love walks out of the door."

Paula Hall from Relate, a relationship counseling service, has a slightly less cynical view. "More financial stress will tend to show the cracks in marriage contracts which were either overtly or covertly financial in the first place."

Another Mishcon de Reya divorce attorney Miles Geffin thinks that the increase isn't just as simple as the trophy wives marching out the door while there are still assets to divide. He thinks that the working partner — in this case, the man — has just as much motivation to divorce under these circumstances as the woman.

"Businessmen who lose their job often see it as an opportunity to head straight off to the divorce court before they find a new job — so alimony payments will be based on their unemployed status."

Click here for more.

Women's rights activists are up in arms about a contentious divorce case in Tennessee that may result in the local marital property laws to be changed. According to an article in Tennessean.com, "a wage-earning husband gets to keep $1.7 million in stock. His homemaker wife gets nothing."

Okay, I admit, when we're talking about the rights of the stay-at-home spouse — and let's face it, while many husbands including my own are starting to stay home, it's generally the wife — and there are a few million dollars in play, I can see why people are getting concerned. Some are suggesting that if this settlement goes through as is, it could be precedent setting and go against state laws.

But, and there's a really big but, I don't think that this case has anything to do with the wife being a homemaker. The court says that the husband is being allowed to keep the stock and not share it because all he did was hold it after receiving it as a gift from his father. Her employment status is irrelevant.

In my opinion — and I know this is going to make me the bad guy — when you decide not to work, you take a risk. A gift given to one individual is just that — a gift with only one intended recipient. If Daddy had given him a cheese knife, is she entitled to half of that, too?

Click here for more.

Because I’ve been known to have a one-track mind, I’m still thinking about what I wrote about last week: Should some people just stay single?

My partner and I have been talking about this a lot lately. We are two of the most compatible people I’ve ever known. We live together. We run a business together. We work in our home office together.

And we are completely and utterly sick of each other. Actually, that’s not entirely true. We’re not sick of each other, we’re sick of not being alone.

Here’s the thing: We’re both very independent people. We’re both people pleasers. We both go out of our way to make the other person desperately, completely, ragingly happy. It’s exhausting, and I don’t think we want to do it any more.

We want to eat what we want for dinner. We want to stop discussing the color of paint on the walls. We want to stop planning and talking and communicating. We both just want to be left alone.

I was reading one of my favorite columnists, Lisa Kogan from Oprah’s O Magazine. She and her — what? Husband? Fiance? Boyfriend? Non-domestic partner? — live in two different countries and have no plans to change that situation. They’re in love. They’re monogamous. They’re happy. They see each other once a month.

I wonder if that would work for us. I mean, separate continents might be a bit much. I’m not in love with the idea of schlepping the baby across the ocean on a monthly basis. But maybe separate places in the same city might work.