When I saw the news on Facebook that Vanessa Bryant filed for divorce, I was shocked! Not because I think Kobe is faithful (or remotely handsome - but that's beside the point), but because she stayed with him through that whole highly-publicized and humiliating rape accusation that resulted in him publicly admitting he had an affair. If she didn't leave him then (or at least shortly after), I didn't think she ever would. Plus, Vanessa was only eighteen when she married the NBA star, so basically she doesn't know life without him. Unfortunately, we have no reason to doubt TMZ's reports that Vanessa was sick of Kobe's infidelity, so I guess sometimes enough is enough.

I'm truly sad for them though. No matter how rich, how famous, or how whatever you are, it's devastating when you commit your life to someone and things do not work out. It's devastating for them and for their children. Personally, I believe that people don't try hard enough to make their marriages work, but who knows what went on behind closed doors? "Irreconcilable differences" could mean anything. I can at least appreciate the fact that they gave it a chance (Kim K's 72-day sham will always make me appreciate this fact), but I am a happily-ever-after girl and I believe "ever after" means "ever after".

Of course this type of high-profile breakup between a pro-basketball star and a virtual no-name makes people immediately ask about a prenuptial agreement. Apparently, Kobe Bryant didn't have one.

According to TMZ:

"Given that the marriage has lasted more than a decade and the pre-marriage assets are commingled with what was accumulated during the marriage, the assets are distributed based on the community property laws of California -- which means a 50/50 split."

This news predictably caused a firestorm reaction via social media with accusations flying that Vanessa is a "gold-digger" who "didn't play basketball" and doesn't "deserve his money". "Plus", the hysterical tweets add, "she got that 8 million dollar 'apology' ring back in '03".

These are the same sort of conversations that flew around the news of Dwayne Wade's divorce and (though it was before social media's ubiquitous time) Michael Jordan's divorce too. So typical. Your basketball hero double dribbles and thus must turnover his ring and you're mad at the ref. Okay, that was a bad analogy, but seriously...

How does Kobe Bryant's lack of a prenuptial agreement ten years ago make Vanessa Bryant a gold-digger?

And, why in these types of situations where a philandering husband is forced to split his assets with the woman he scorned is the woman always vilified?

Is Kobe Bryant "ignorant" for not having a pre-nup? Or is he ignorant for cheating on his wife?

Looks like Kobe Bryant didn't need a pre-nup to protect himself from her anyway. He needed a pre-nup to protect himself from himself. He is the one who didn't keep his basketball on his home court. An NBA contract is not a license to bed-hop and marrying an NBA star shouldn't mean you have to turn a blind eye. Why is she the one being maligned here? Why should he be able to sweep a child off her feet, marry her, introduce her to a life she would have never caught a glimpse of otherwise (while simultaneously pre-empting any chance she had for building a life for herself), have babies with her, cheat on her (subjecting her to AIDS, herpes, and everything else lurking in the underpants of a high percentage of society) and then leave her high and dry? Is this fair just because he plays basketball? No.

In most situations, I'm not a pre-nup fan. I understand people come into marriages with all types of different assets and debts - this is magnified when one of the people entering the marriage is loaded. However, when you commit your life to someone you commit your life. If you decide you're no longer about that life, then you suffer the consequences - financial or otherwise.  

A pre-nuptial agreement only works as it should when the person who did the dirt is the one who doesn't have the money in the relationship (see: Sandra Bullock and Jesse James). A pre-nuptial agreement is not a get-out-of-marriage free card and shouldn't be treated as such. Besides, it is not as though the person who is perceived as the financial "beneficiary" of the lack of pre-nup leaves the marriage unscathed. It's a tough situation all around.

The saddest thing about this situation is what it reveals about the state of our generation. This is a 29-year-old woman and a 33-year-old man who are the parents of two small children and who are facing a life without each other after ten whole years. And instead of hoping for reconciliation for this broken home all we can ask is "did he have a pre-nup?"