Art_Critic Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 but many men are stuck paying alimony or overly exaggerated child-support. A prenup doesn't and can't consider child support.. that a court and judge make the ruling according to law.
eatNrM Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 I plan on getting a prenup, because I plan on acquiring a significant amount of assets. So I think it's totally reasonable (regardless of the financial status of my wife) to put some plans into place, in the event that things turn sour.
Art_Critic Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Fact: 70 to 90% of all break-ups and divorces are the desire of the woman. Any guy who gets married without a pre-nup is a complete f***-tard. Any guy who lets her move in without a marriage and pre-nup is also a complete F***-tard. Common law marriage can be declared after only a few months of living together. So the "commitment-phobes" think living together without a marriage is a smarter move. Wrong! It only pisses her off and causes problems with her and her family and her friends. It makes her question constantly "how much you care". She will still rationalize that you didn't put a ring on her finger when she goes out with her friends for a girl's night out when the alpha male asks for her number. Be a man and marry the girl if you want her to live you, but get a pre-nup first. Without that, she can still take you for half via common-law marriage. If you want to keep her, put a ring on her finger and marry her, but ONLY with a pre-nup. If she won't sign the pre-nup, she doesn't love you. Period. And remember, "fair" doesn't exist in a woman's mind. Ever. They are way more selfish than men. So why marry one???? You are going to be single a long time dude... and you haven't a clue to what you speak about in common law marriages.. In my state the courts will only consider them if a child is conceived as a while they were living together and even then the courts consider that sketchy. While common law exists it isn't as easy as shacking up with someone for it to be used...many states require many years not months of living together and also require that you hold yourselves out as married to the public.
Eve Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Doesn't matter. Most people aren't rich, but many men are stuck paying alimony or overly exaggerated child-support. 1000 pounds mean nothing to Prince William, but to a man of modest income that is the difference between dying of starvation and filling his table. There's the difference right there. I don't think we have alimony over here. I am sure we don't. In fact I don't understand why it exists. Divorce is divorce proper here. *EUREKA MOMENT* In all honesty, I finally think I have worked out why there is such a difference in tone within American posts - especially the men. I have been wondering what could be fueling this distrust of women, especially wanting them to pay on dates and bs like that. Not to mention the ignorance towards children. I understand the racism, that's active history, but could not work out fully why things are so different in comparison to posts made by persons of other cultures. I had thought maybe the media had something to do with it and politics .. but no.. of course!!! You lot have to pay for a spouse even when they have gone, don't you? Maybe you should change that? Nowt wrong with marrige itself. Just get rid of the dodgy alimony thing. I would be in support of the child support laws being reviewed also. Currently it is not a fair system over in the UK either but I am sure it is more dodgy in the US. Anyhow, I cannot offer any further constructive advice here other than to change the Laws which are the causing the problem and then maybe you could all cheer up a bit! Take care, Eve x
eatNrM Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Fact: 70 to 90% of all break-ups and divorces are the desire of the woman. Any guy who gets married without a pre-nup is a complete f***-tard. Any guy who lets her move in without a marriage and pre-nup is also a complete F***-tard. Common law marriage can be declared after only a few months of living together. So the "commitment-phobes" think living together without a marriage is a smarter move. Wrong! It only pisses her off and causes problems with her and her family and her friends. It makes her question constantly "how much you care". She will still rationalize that you didn't put a ring on her finger when she goes out with her friends for a girl's night out when the alpha male asks for her number. Be a man and marry the girl if you want her to live you, but get a pre-nup first. Without that, she can still take you for half via common-law marriage. If you want to keep her, put a ring on her finger and marry her, but ONLY with a pre-nup. If she won't sign the pre-nup, she doesn't love you. Period. And remember, "fair" doesn't exist in a woman's mind. Ever. They are way more selfish than men. So why marry one???? You know, women aren't bad people. Sure there's some, but they're mostly sexy sweethearts. Why are you so angry? Have you been rejected recently or something? What's up?
Eddie Edirol Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 A legal partnership agreement can clarify the issues up-front. Sure, nothing is iron-clad, but a properly executed agreement which is updated regularly can protect both parties. There are plenty of single women my age with substantial estates and inheritances to protect. I'm sure that we'll be seeing more partnership agreements or similar legal documents in our future. I'm fine with that. I lost enough of my premarital net worth in divorce to be fine with the process if getting married again. I'll retire 8-10 years later, but learned a lot. Carhill I like this... so it can be called a "partnership agreement" and do the same thing without the sting of the words Pre-nup? That would make it easier to get signed.....I dont know if anyone would be fooled, but its all about the wording...
carhill Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 For more information on cohabitation/palimony in California, google 'Marvin actions', named such after the late actor Lee Marvin. Such dynamics make a good case for clear legal partnership agreements in unmarried cohabiting situations. As is customary in California, all aspects of child-related matters (for example children born of the cohabiting partners) are addressed in family court. Palimony action, OTOH, is addressed in civil court. The venue for the lawsuit is different than that of a divorce lawsuit, which is prosecuted in family court. As always, laws and procedures vary by jurisdiction, so getting competent legal advice in a particular jurisdiction would be my advice.. Another aspect is residency requirements for advantageous divorce/lawsuit jurisdictions. This can also be covered in pre/post-nuptials. The list goes on and on. As our society moves towards substantially equal gender roles and expectations, so must our laws and practices and procedures move to recognize and codify them. I envision a day where a woman will ask me to sign a pre/post nuptial agreement to protect herself. That's where we're headed. Not a problem for me. YMMV>
ThsAmericanLife Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 The pragmatic part of me says that pre-nups are a good idea.. but, I also think that marriage should be reserved for people who sincerely want to make a life-time commitment. So, if you feel the need for a pre-nup, it seems you are already predicting the end or are demonstrating a lack of trust. I'd weigh in favor of not getting married if you feel the need for a pre-nup. About Paul McCartney... I don't know him. Never met him. But what's a few million between friends, eh? I'm sure he thought about that before he got married and make the same decision as me. Commitment is a risk. No way around it. That is the way it is supposed to be.
carhill Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 I married for the first time late in life and fully intended to have a lifetime union, just as my parents did. One makes plans and life happens. Next time, if there is a next time, the plan will just be a bit different. Life can and will still happen. It's inevitable. The thing about human relations is that one's personal perspective only binds the one. The others are out of the one's control. They have their own minds, own perspectives and those are subject to both internal and external changes. Risky? Sure. We insure for risks all the time. A partnership agreement is a form of insurance. One doesn't have to buy it. It's available for those who choose to. Is it ironclad insurance? No way. Even insurance has risks. One need only to look at their personal liability and casualty exposure to know that. It's one simple tool, along with the other tools one learns from life experience. One can use the tool or leave it in the toolbox and do the job a different way. Choice.
eatNrM Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 The pragmatic part of me says that pre-nups are a good idea.. but, I also think that marriage should be reserved for people who sincerely want to make a life-time commitment. So, if you feel the need for a pre-nup, it seems you are already predicting the end or are demonstrating a lack of trust. I'd weigh in favor of not getting married if you feel the need for a pre-nup. About Paul McCartney... I don't know him. Never met him. But what's a few million between friends, eh? I'm sure he thought about that before he got married and make the same decision as me. Commitment is a risk. No way around it. That is the way it is supposed to be. I respectfully disagree, AL. I don't think protecting a large amount of assets in the event things don't work out demonstrates a lack of trust. I think I'm more than capable of loving someone and still protecting myself. A lack of trust and not knowing what the future holds are two different things. If I didn't trust my partner, I wouldn't propose to her to begin with.
ThsAmericanLife Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 You know, women aren't bad people. Sure there's some, but they're mostly sexy sweethearts. Why are you so angry? Have you been rejected recently or something? What's up? THREAD JAK Hey! Are you really 41? Or 23? Oh, well, who cares. How far away is New Orleans from you... LA dude? My Chicago GF is dating someone and doesn't want to do anything fun for halloween. I was going to go out and visit her to see if she wanted to hit the town. I'm not busting my butt on my 'Firebird' costume just to throw it in the closet after dancing all night at the local gay bar.... All of the ingredients are sitting on my dining room table, and I need some inspiration to put it together... (no, I'm not gay... I have a very diverse set of friends though!!)
carhill Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 E_P, your post about sperm donors caused me to cast around for some anecdotes. Here's one which addresses the subject, though the gist of the article is from 2007, so somewhat out of date. However, contained within it is a IMO bizarre case, known as Hermesmann v. Seyer, where a female 16yo babysitter had sex with her 12 year old male client and subsequently became pregnant, had the child and successfully sued the 12 year old for child support. They can't make this stuff up
ThsAmericanLife Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Yes, that's exactly it. An average-looking man has to pay for the dates and women continue to say that they only pay if they aren't interested in the guy and do not wish to give him false hope. A man is torn between the necessity of paying if he wants a shot at a relationship, but many women are multi-dating, taking these guy's resources away and complaining that some of the guys are cheap and don't want to spend their hard-earned money. I know a guy who lost more than 1 million dollars in 10 years by dating and he has nothing to show for. The women weren't gold-diggers,average-looking, with their own jobs, and the dates were very cheap, but a coffee here, a dessert there, and the expenses accumulate. Some women don't mind going to parks and free museums as a date but that's rare. My family members in their mid-teens are beginning to date and they not only have to have a car for a girl to even say yes to their invitation; they gotta pay for the girl's tickets. They tell me that not even the most plain(or ugly) or the girls wants to go for a walk in the beach. What do you think is the financial situation of the men who deal with women in college? Then a guy in his 30's has to have a career, good money, a good education, and the potential to earn more money because the women want to settle down and they want financial security. A man is accused of rape if he tries to get fresh with his wife; she can send him to jail and also take his house and possessions, no proof required that he molested her. A destitute-d man is obliged by the law to pay alimony. If he doesn't have money but misses one month in alimony payment his sorrowful ass is now a tenant of the local jail. I know of guys suing their fathers to pay for their colleges even after these poor guys spent their lifetime paying child-support. Whenever a woman is tired of her husband or common-law partner she can quickly kick him out of his house and she can press charges without any proof of domestic violence; and that is also why women are so fat. They can do what they please for they own men and they're always making sure that men don't forget that we're work slaves and their pets. change the laws? women run our political world; they will never let go of this feminist utopia where they exploit men 24/7/ act like victims, and try to force men into marrying them or fathering a child with them, which many men are raising and paying for kids who belong to other men, but we aren't allowed paternity tests(if you are a guy). Did you know that a man, by donating his sperm to a sperm bank, is now forced by law to pay child-support? Think of a Country on which men are only valued if we're working ourselves into an early grave or if we're dying in the middle-east. That's us! ok.. and then there are men like you who insist on continuing to find these examples so that you can continue to be angry and hateful. ...instead of supporting women who don't do the above. Or, maybe you do... but then call them worthless meat or worse. Make up your mind. There are women who don't buy into the above, but then you'd maybe have to screen for character instead of looks. Bummer.
2sure Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 The "rules" for marriage/divorce in your area are the same for the rich and the poor. Because they are based on LAWS. Neither a pre-nup or a post-nup is going to hold up if it does not adhere to the laws. A Pre-Nup or a Post-Nup pretty much cover ASSETS. A house you already OWN, Investments earning interest. Stuff like that. It is recommended for people with assets to have papers drawn up. If you have no real assets...why bother? Things like alimony, child support, shared assets,retirement accounts, are all up for negotiation just like any divorce and depend on the courts in your area, your incomes, and the length of your marriage...and if your Pre or Post Nup is in conflict with the law...good luck with it.
ThsAmericanLife Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 I married for the first time late in life and fully intended to have a lifetime union, just as my parents did. One makes plans and life happens. Next time, if there is a next time, the plan will just be a bit different. Life can and will still happen. It's inevitable. The thing about human relations is that one's personal perspective only binds the one. The others are out of the one's control. They have their own minds, own perspectives and those are subject to both internal and external changes. Risky? Sure. We insure for risks all the time. A partnership agreement is a form of insurance. One doesn't have to buy it. It's available for those who choose to. Is it ironclad insurance? No way. Even insurance has risks. One need only to look at their personal liability and casualty exposure to know that. It's one simple tool, along with the other tools one learns from life experience. One can use the tool or leave it in the toolbox and do the job a different way. Choice. I know. It takes two. Always sad when it doesn't work. One positive about pre-nups is that it puts expectations on the table. Those who marry later have a whole set of other obligations that came before their SO. If I were to marry again, I'd probably have some informal agreement that certain things went to my family (heirlooms, etc). In my will, my dog goes to my dog sitter... plus a few $$ to help care for him. My parents and family couldn't manage a high energy critter like him. So, there are times when contracts are useful. At the end of the day though...finding ways to share the risk seems to feel more like a partnership. Like most things... having the conversation is probably the most important thing.
ThsAmericanLife Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 I respectfully disagree, AL. I don't think protecting a large amount of assets in the event things don't work out demonstrates a lack of trust. I think I'm more than capable of loving someone and still protecting myself. A lack of trust and not knowing what the future holds are two different things. If I didn't trust my partner, I wouldn't propose to her to begin with. To be honest, I'm still on the fence about this. I know of at least one person who is still married because he didn't get a pre-nup and doesn't want to get taken to the bank in a divorce. IMHO, he needs to work on his marriage, and lack of a pre-nup is giving him that incentive... as painful as it is. Sure, there are situations where the marriage is downright intolerable or abusive. Most situations aren't like that though. on the other hand... with people getting married later in life (see my post above) there are things that the spouse is not entitled to whatsoever. There is alot of wiggle room here, and room for discussion.
eatNrM Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 THREAD JAK Hey! Are you really 41? Or 23? Oh, well, who cares. How far away is New Orleans from you... LA dude? My Chicago GF is dating someone and doesn't want to do anything fun for halloween. I was going to go out and visit her to see if she wanted to hit the town. I'm not busting my butt on my 'Firebird' costume just to throw it in the closet after dancing all night at the local gay bar.... All of the ingredients are sitting on my dining room table, and I need some inspiration to put it together... (no, I'm not gay... I have a very diverse set of friends though!!) haha, I'm 23:cool: Well damn, she's being lame. Ah, the good ole N.O?Iits like right next door, 60 miles away, not far at all. I might do something out there to be honest, and get into a little fun. Now why would you two go to a gay bar?? And yes, put that costume together because I said so. Don't disappoint me ,girl.
eatNrM Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 To be honest, I'm still on the fence about this. I know of at least one person who is still married because he didn't get a pre-nup and doesn't want to get taken to the bank in a divorce. IMHO, he needs to work on his marriage, and lack of a pre-nup is giving him that incentive... as painful as it is. Sure, there are situations where the marriage is downright intolerable or abusive. Most situations aren't like that though. on the other hand... with people getting married later in life (see my post above) there are things that the spouse is not entitled to whatsoever. There is alot of wiggle room here, and room for discussion. I definitely agree with you here, sweetheart. I honestly feel, however, if I didn't have a large amount of assets, and nothing of considerable size to worry about, I wouldn't even bother with one. If we build something together, I have no problem splitting it if we were to separate.
carhill Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 At the end of the day though...finding ways to share the risk seems to feel more like a partnership. Like most things... having the conversation is probably the most important thing. For myself, a compatible person would be open to and accepting of the conversation regarding a partnership agreement/pre-nup. For execution, I'd depend upon the competence of the law firm which has served me with excellence in other matters of law. Competent legal help is a must, especially considering the costs of it. I would expect any woman of my age to bring similar assets and perspectives to the table. We've all been around the block, so know the drill. In other news, a good friend in his 70's, a multi-millionaire in his own right, is marrying his like-aged girlfriend, to my knowledge without a pre-nup. Something to do with right of survivorship regarding some of their real estate interests. Marrying was cheaper. He didn't see a need for the tool so left it in the box. His choice. In his case, his wife did depart, by death, after years in his care, so perhaps his perspective is different.
ThsAmericanLife Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 haha, I'm 23:cool: Well damn, she's being lame. Ah, the good ole N.O?Iits like right next door, 60 miles away, not far at all. I might do something out there to be honest, and get into a little fun. Now why would you two go to a gay bar?? And yes, put that costume together because I said so. Don't disappoint me ,girl. Me and my local Starbucks barista buddy are going to a gay bar up here. I know... YAWN. but actually, gay bars can be pretty fun. My friend in Chicago really is quite the fun girl... but is dating a serious guy. Plus, she really wants to start a family and settle down. So I can't blame her. it's the red lace-up corset that is the coolest. Sorry to tell you that the booty is 'hiding' beneath layers of tulle and 'flames'... but, as you said before, a trained eye can't miss those things...
ThsAmericanLife Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 For myself, a compatible person would be open to and accepting of the conversation regarding a partnership agreement/pre-nup. For execution, I'd depend upon the competence of the law firm which has served me with excellence in other matters of law. Competent legal help is a must, especially considering the costs of it. I would expect any woman of my age to bring similar assets and perspectives to the table. We've all been around the block, so know the drill. In other news, a good friend in his 70's, a multi-millionaire in his own right, is marrying his like-aged girlfriend, to my knowledge without a pre-nup. Something to do with right of survivorship regarding some of their real estate interests. Marrying was cheaper. He didn't see a need for the tool so left it in the box. His choice. In his case, his wife did depart, by death, after years in his care, so perhaps his perspective is different. yes. He had a 'positive' experience of separation. having been through both... separation by divorce and separation by death. I can definately say for me... separation by death is much less traumatic. The person is gone, but at least you keep your good memories. So often, in a divorce, one or both feel the need to trash everything that was good. Making one wonder why they invested so much in the first place. TBH, money is the last thing on my mind in that situation. I'm sadder about losing the person. I think this is one reason why I gravitate to male friends over romantic relationships lately. These men are still in my life. My ex isn't.
FitChick Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Why is it that men who have never been married, have little money or no job are the ones who are most worried about golddiggers, pre-nups and alimony? They'll never be in the position to deal with those things. Very few women get alimony. Most women have to go to court just to get decent child support. If there are children by a previous marriage then their assets must be protected. If spouse #2 has no kids, then she should make his kids her heirs. That way after her husband dies, she won't be destitute and when she dies, the kids will get what's left. Seems fair to me. To repeat what has already been mentioned but not read by some, if you inherit money, it is yours alone and not your spouse's. When two people are married and then file for divorce, in most states they split whatever assets they accumulated during the marriage, not what each of them had before. What you bring into a marriage is yours alone. In this economy, since the value of houses has consistently gone down, there isn't much money to split anyway. If a man made a fortune in the stockmarket before he got married, then lost his job while the wife worked, she would be paying him spousal support. I've always thought there should be a cheating penalty payment. The spouse who cheats gets little or nothing. I never cheat!
2sure Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Why is it that men who have never been married, have little money or no job are the ones who are most worried about golddiggers, pre-nups and alimony? They'll never be in the position to deal with those things. I was thinking the same thing. On the other hand...its often women in the same position that are the gold diggers. I am also wondering, as to the original poster who said: I will be your golden egg.... OK, so I agree to that, and I will sign the pre nup. Now...what if something happens to your money, your job or your assets and you can no longer be my golden egg??? Ima want my own Pre-Nup for that.
Woggle Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Why is it that men who have never been married, have little money or no job are the ones who are most worried about golddiggers, pre-nups and alimony? They'll never be in the position to deal with those things. Because they see what their fathers. uncles and men we know have gone through and they want to prevent it happening to them. It is better to prevent something before it happens than deal with it when it does.
Jynxx Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Wow, where do I begin Why is it that men who have never been married, have little money or no job are the ones who are most worried about golddiggers, pre-nups and alimony? They'll never be in the position to deal with those things. I don't agree. Imo smart and ambitious people are the ones who are worried about those things, and for those people wealth is not an indication of future wealth, ie even if they are in bad financial shape right now, odds are they won't be by the time they will divorce and they will be again right after the divorce. Very few women get alimony. Most women have to go to court just to get decent child support. While I'm sure there are some scumbags out there who don't want to pay up for their childerens education, there are at least as many women who ask outrageous child support, get it and spend most of it on their shoe and jewelery collection. Luckily both categories are a minority and most women who raise a child will get enough financial support from the father. What you bring into a marriage is yours alone. In this economy, since the value of houses has consistently gone down, there isn't much money to split anyway. "this economy" isn't going to last forever. If you're planning to get married and divorced within 5 years or so, you're pretty safe. If however you plan on taking longer to get divorced you shouldn't count on houses being practically worthless anymore. I've always thought there should be a cheating penalty payment. The spouse who cheats gets little or nothing. I never cheat! While I don't disagree with the theory, in practice it will lead to psychological terrorisme. Imagine a woman wants a divorce, so she doesn't have sex with a guy, refuses to sign divorce papers and has a detective follow him around. The moment she has proof of him sleeping with someone else she files for divorce and gets most of his assets. Still seems like a good idea?
Recommended Posts