For the ladies. Would You Sign a Pre-nup?

[Nicomis]

OK, there are many many men out there under the impression that women only view them as a walking ATM, and an equal number of women denying it, although I have noticed on dating sites a lot of waitresses, and kindergarten teachers with photos on their profile from cruises, and European vacations, and the first thing on their list of demands is that a man be "a professional", and "financially secure". How many of you would honestly sign a pre-nup that would give him all that he had and contributed, and you all that you had and contributed. This would include making his retirement, and equity in any property already in his possession off limits to you, as well as no alimony for either party. Of course child support is separate, but lets say your not going to have kids. How many of you would marry the man you "love" if he handed you this?

[threebyfate]

My husband and I signed a post-nup, at my insistence. It was supposed to be a pre-nup but we were a bit rushed to get married from an accidental pregnancy while engaged.

[darkmoon]

a pre-nup lawyer was written about in an article, the gist was that the couple are living a sort-of divorce when planning a pre-nup, and the lawyer learned to expect pre-nups from guys that would leave the women with nothing, often just the clothes on their backs, the women would always insist that their fiance wasn't like that and was instead a really nice guy, um....

[Nicomis]

a pre-nup lawyer was written about in an article, the gist was that the couple are living a sort-of divorce when planning a pre-nup, and the lawyer learned to expect pre-nups from guys that would leave the women with nothing, often just the clothes on their backs, the women would always insist that their fiance wasn't like that and was instead a really nice guy, um....

 

I didn't say anything about leaving anybody with nothing. I said you keep what you brought in and contributed, and he keeps what he brought in and contributed. So are you saying that the woman has nothing and contributes nothing? I am pretty sure most of this stuff that is "written", has a feminist agenda. If she's "equal" she should be more than OK with just taking with her what's hers. Women in the U.S. have made a profitable industry for themselves out of divorce. Not sure about U.K. stats, but I'll wager they are similar.

[MissBee]

OK, there are many many men out there under the impression that women only view them as a walking ATM, and an equal number of women denying it, although I have noticed on dating sites a lot of waitresses, and kindergarten teachers with photos on their profile from cruises, and European vacations, and the first thing on their list of demands is that a man be "a professional", and "financially secure". How many of you would honestly sign a pre-nup that would give him all that he had and contributed, and you all that you had and contributed. This would include making his retirement, and equity in any property already in his possession off limits to you, as well as no alimony for either party. Of course child support is separate, but lets say your not going to have kids. How many of you would marry the man you "love" if he handed you this?

 

I would.

 

I actually don't get why people have a problem with this frankly.

[wildgeese]

Of course I would. I'd rather be in a partnership that is somewhat equal (as it's unlikely that we'd be making the exact same) anyway. My current partner and I share the majority of household funds and I take pleasure in knowing that we both contribute.

[pink_sugar]

I definitely would. I have no problem with either party keeping what was theirs prior to marriage, because I would feel wrong about taking money my H worked hard to earn for himself. I have always been motivated to make my own money and support myself. I don't have a desire to take a man to the cleaners for all he's worth like other women.

[MissBee]

I definitely would. I have no problem with either party keeping what was theirs prior to marriage, because I would feel wrong about taking money my H worked hard to earn for himself. I have always been motivated to make my own money and support myself. I don't have a desire to take a man to the cleaners for all he's worth like other women.

 

I too have no desire to take a man to the cleaners, although if he were a cheating scoundrel, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't feel justified in that case .

 

While we're married, my success is his and his mine, and our resources are for us and I have no problem with that, so long as we're committed life partners. But if that changes, then it's only fair that he keeps what he brought and contributed and I do the same.

[darkmoon]

I didn't say anything about leaving anybody with nothing. I said you keep what you brought in and contributed, and he keeps what he brought in and contributed. So are you saying that the woman has nothing and contributes nothing? I am pretty sure most of this stuff that is "written", has a feminist agenda. If she's "equal" she should be more than OK with just taking with her what's hers. Women in the U.S. have made a profitable industry for themselves out of divorce. Not sure about U.K. stats, but I'll wager they are similar.

 

you aimed the question as for the ladies, so this lady here answered, i'm wondering what happens if she gets kicked out by her husband and has children who she could lose or is losing but who she would need financial help to support?

Edited July 5, 2012 by darkmoon

[Radu]

you aimed the question as for the ladies, so this lady here answered, i'm wondering what happens if she gets kicked out by her husband and has children who she could lose or is losing but who she would need financial help to support?

 

All the hypothetical you put forward are non-issues.

 

'kicked out by her husband and has children who she could lose' -- seriously ?;

- getting kicked out by your wife is a reality in the US/Canada and in Canada/UK she can give you a criminal record without any proof or consequences. Criminal record which will be used against the husband in custody trial.

Something like this does not happen to women in the western world.

- if they are your children biologically or if you adopted them, nobody can take them away from you, no man. Unless off-c that man happens to kidnap them to his country that does not have an extradition treaty with the US [which is exactly what Japanese women sometimes do with their children, the father is still paying alimony and child support while he is not allowed to interact with them and she is not punished ... google it]. Outside of a few countries that allow this to happen, this does not reflect the other states.

 

'but who she would need financial help to support'

Have you read the OP or the subsequent posts ?

The user said pre-nup, but he did not imply that the prenup would remove support from the children.

I don't even think you can legally do this, it sounds like an abusive prenup that would not hold in court [at least in my country it would be considered void].

 

 

This here user [male] asks himself wheather there was a feminist agenda behind that post or not.

[Janesays]

I'm usually the one with more assets/money in the relationship.

 

No, I wouldn't sign a pre-nup.

[Radu]

I'm usually the one with more assets/money in the relationship.

 

No, I wouldn't sign a pre-nup.

 

I'm curious why not, considering it would be to your advantage.

[darkmoon]

All the hypothetical you put forward are non-issues.

 

'kicked out by her husband and has children who she could lose' -- seriously ?;

- getting kicked out by your wife is a reality in the US/Canada and in Canada/UK she can give you a criminal record without any proof or consequences. Criminal record which will be used against the husband in custody trial.

Something like this does not happen to women in the western world.

- if they are your children biologically or if you adopted them, nobody can take them away from you, no man. Unless off-c that man happens to kidnap them to his country that does not have an extradition treaty with the US [which is exactly what Japanese women sometimes do with their children, the father is still paying alimony and child support while he is not allowed to interact with them and she is not punished ... google it]. Outside of a few countries that allow this to happen, this does not reflect the other states.

 

'but who she would need financial help to support'

Have you read the OP or the subsequent posts ?

The user said pre-nup, but he did not imply that the prenup would remove support from the children.

I don't even think you can legally do this, it sounds like an abusive prenup that would not hold in court [at least in my country it would be considered void].

 

This here user [male] asks himself wheather there was a feminist agenda behind that post or not.

 

i'm basing this on english law, mothers can get kicked out here, and lose their children, i'm glad you're not my fiance! i'd call the wedding off, too risky for me

[denise_xo]

I'd happily sign one.

[TigerCub]

My bf and I talked about this.

He suggested a prenup for the hypothetical day in the future we get married.

 

My initial reaction was against it. I actually make more money than him, so its not the $, but it just seemed so unromantic to actually think that yeah we'd get married, but we're likely to get divorced.

(that's how what my initial thought was)

 

But when I thought about it (and he expalined his side) - a prenup is really just a contract so that IF a divorce every happens, it doesn't get messy because the way the split would be is already decided and agreed upon.

That does make sense. Its not romantic, but its practical.

 

I would sign a prenup, but it would have to have all kinds of scenarios:

- if children are involved

- it would have to be fair ,etc...

 

I also told him, I would include a **** ton of cheating clauses that would screw him over if he eve cheated on me

not that he would, but hey everyone goes into a marriage thinking they wont get divorced (but they prepare for it with a prenup), so why not prepare for the "unlikely" case of cheating.

 

I defintely would sign a prenup that's fair to both of us. It really is not romantic, but I'm guessing divorce is hard enough, at least taking away the messiness of distributing/fighting over assets would be a good thing.

[Radu]

i'm basing this on english law, mothers can get kicked out here, and lose their children, i'm glad you're not my fiance! i'd call the wedding off, too risky for me

 

There is no way i could be your fiance. We would of had this discussion much earlier, before i proposed because 'engaged' is not just a word, it means a commitement that you make.

 

English Law is Commonwealth Law, which is to be found in UK, US, Canada, Australia, etc ...

In those countries, mother are generally favoured in divorce courts. There is a user on this forum who lives in England and who still can't erase his 'criminal' record [false allegations of abuse by the ex-wife].

There is another user on this forum who lives in Canada or the US who's wife tried to get him killed by cops with a false police report, intervention in the middle of the night and 'he is brandishing a gun' while he slept.

In Canada there was a study made that found around 2700 false allegations of DV in a major region in just 1yr, false allegations for which they are not punished.

In the news last yr there was an Englishman who's wife went to the spermbank and withdrew the sperm of her ex-husband without his consent, got 2 kids all without his knowledge. A few yrs later she sued him for child support while he was married with another woman and had 2 kids.

He is finished financially, the judge [uK in this case], found against him even though she took away his basic civil liberties through her actions and is still adamant about 'i did nothing wrong, i can look at my kids and be ok with it'.

I can give many more examples of this, bottom line is that the courts generally favour the women in the western world for primary custody and in Commonwealth Law countries men are generally 2nd class citizens when it comes to acces to their kids.

For fun, look up the statistics of DNA tests done on children to establish paternity. 300k tests each yr in the US, and a 3rd show that the man who thought they were his did not in fact concieve them.

Nobody punishes these women for knowingly doing fraud.

 

I live in a country that many classify as 3rd world.

Our law system is Roman Law.

We don't have discrimination against women in acces to jobs, in fact we had women in leadership and military when westerners were still debating the Nuremberg trials.

In our law system though, if you are a woman and you lodge a complaint of DV, you need proof [just as if you were a man].

Which means bruises [seen by a doctor and with a certificate], or testimony from others [most powerfull] who have heard it/witnessed it.

Everyone knows you need to follow it up, so i guess it keeps false allegations down, not to mention that false allegations are generally punished because they do in fact destroy reputations/carrers in the age of the internet and the media has no problem attacking those that file false allegations.

 

Finally, if you wish to avoid most risks associated with marriage, i advise you to not get married, not date and certainly not have children.

[darkmoon]

There is no way i could be your fiance. We would of had this discussion much earlier, before i proposed because 'engaged' is not just a word, it means a commitement that you make.

 

English Law is Commonwealth Law, which is to be found in UK, US, Canada, Australia, etc ...

In those countries, mother are generally favoured in divorce courts. There is a user on this forum who lives in England and who still can't erase his 'criminal' record [false allegations of abuse by the ex-wife].

There is another user on this forum who lives in Canada or the US who's wife tried to get him killed by cops with a false police report, intervention in the middle of the night and 'he is brandishing a gun' while he slept.

In Canada there was a study made that found around 2700 false allegations of DV in a major region in just 1yr, false allegations for which they are not punished.

In the news last yr there was an Englishman who's wife went to the spermbank and withdrew the sperm of her ex-husband without his consent, got 2 kids all without his knowledge. A few yrs later she sued him for child support while he was married with another woman and had 2 kids.

He is finished financially, the judge [uK in this case], found against him even though she took away his basic civil liberties through her actions and is still adamant about 'i did nothing wrong, i can look at my kids and be ok with it'.

I can give many more examples of this, bottom line is that the courts generally favour the women in the western world for primary custody and in Commonwealth Law countries men are generally 2nd class citizens when it comes to acces to their kids.

For fun, look up the statistics of DNA tests done on children to establish paternity. 300k tests each yr in the US, and a 3rd show that the man who thought they were his did not in fact concieve them.

Nobody punishes these women for knowingly doing fraud.

 

I live in a country that many classify as 3rd world.

Our law system is Roman Law.

We don't have discrimination against women in acces to jobs, in fact we had women in leadership and military when westerners were still debating the Nuremberg trials.

In our law system though, if you are a woman and you lodge a complaint of DV, you need proof [just as if you were a man].

Which means bruises [seen by a doctor and with a certificate], or testimony from others [most powerfull] who have heard it/witnessed it.

Everyone knows you need to follow it up, so i guess it keeps false allegations down, not to mention that false allegations are generally punished because they do in fact destroy reputations/carrers in the age of the internet and the media has no problem attacking those that file false allegations.

 

Finally, if you wish to avoid most risks associated with marriage, i advise you to not get married, not date and certainly not have children.

 

but women getting kicked out can happen, both men and women can get screwed over

[Radu]

****ed up stuff will always happen.

 

However, focusing on this significantly lower potential gives reason to the ppl who profit from hatred to continue in this direction, and equality thus becomes entitlement, becomes abuse, becomes a society where ppl are treated 1st and 2nd class citizens, leaving hatred to seep through into future generations.

 

Most of the movement you have today in the western world where men are less and less likely to consider marriage is actually feminism gone rampant.

In Japan you have herbivores that leave women flabbergasted, in the US you have less and less boys who go to college because of affirmative action and a huge emphasis on girls when resorting to IVF in US/Canada/UK. I think the inventor of the IVF method that allowes a couple to select the gender of their baby has been quoted as 75% preference for girls [and rising]. Some might argue that men feel threatened by this; men have been historically the ones to die in wars.

Hypergamy is a reality, and any man or woman who can look back on their experiences will see proof of it, yet feminist leaders are filled with glee at the increasing nr of women who join colleges over men.

I think they recently celebrated in the US the fact that more women than men are employed in the economy; disregarding the fact that men were the ones who lost most of the jobs following the financial crisis.

 

What does that lead to ?

A society where men end up hating women and resort to fleshlight/prostitution to get their rocks off, a society where men choose not to play this game.

A society where more and more hatred [passive one because you can't show publicly or risk being lynched by 'support' groups], is active.

The leaders who drive men and women down this path will not live to see this and if they do see it will be unrepentent, this world will be inherited by our children.

In a relationship who has the most power, the person who cares the most or cares the least ?

 

You think this is not happening ?

One of the guys i went to HS with is 32 now, has a good job [middle management] and is looking at how he can start a family by himself.

One option is adoption [tricky as a single parent], talking directly with parents who want to give their kids up to adoption [it always involves cash], or India for surrogate mothers.

Another one, 37yrs old, is the epitome of succes, smarts and drive. Dude finished 2 colleges, masters with both and practices both of them in a unique [and profitable] way. Not in the best of shapes, but he can hold a conversation on any subject ... for someone who spends most of his day reading and writing he is in good shape. He's a nice guy overall.

His last gf got GIGS and cheated on him, so he hasn't dated for almost 4yrs now.

It's funny, when he deals with negociations, anything to do with his job he has this incredible drive in his eyes, he is quite scary.

When he meets a woman, he will shut down. He was taught how to have good manners so you would have to know him to figure it out [he'll take her hand, bow and kiss it].

I know he's not gay, i see him eyeing waitresses and girls on the street ... he just gave up completely.

 

Bottom line, this is what the future holds if the ppl who drive feminism as it is today in the western world continue to do so, these ppl have built careers, fortunes, and political power by making feminism even stronger when it didn't need to be.

I read this argument coming from women about how Iraqi and Afghani women were opressed and how the UN [mostly US], decided to also help them.

Yet, nobody asked the women who lost husbands, fathers, brothers in those wars [100k men died alone in the first Iraqi war who had families], about the estimated 500k children dead because of the Iraqi embargo.

Nobody asked these women if they would rather have freedom faster or have their children/fathers/brothers/husbands back.

Even Gloria Steinem [i admire her] cannot see how male circumcision is not mutilation when female circumcision is. Hint, female circumcision comes in 4 varieties, and the first variety [lowest ammount of cutting, dubbed Type Ia] is completely like male circumcision.

 

---

 

Getting back to the OP, i want the prenup mostly to make sure i'm not being seen as a walking ATM, and if i reach 35 [5 more yrs] without having a relationship with serious potential, i will also do what my friend is doing to have one [adopt/surrogate mother] and give up on finding a woman to have a family with.

Doesn't mean i have to stop dating, i just need to stop viewing women as having potential for LTR, which by then will not be so hard.

 

PS: Funny stuff, a while back i read a few sites on dating transexual ppl [M2F], and one of the primary reasons for the men doing this was and i quote 'they are more feminine than women'.

Think about it, some are pretty good looking too.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Radu

[ScienceGal]

I would sign one and expect him to be willing to as well.

[MissBee]

I actually make more money than him, so its not the $, but it just seemed so unromantic to actually think that yeah we'd get married, but we're likely to get divorced.

(that's how what my initial thought was)

 

But when I thought about it (and he expalined his side) - a prenup is really just a contract so that IF a divorce every happens, it doesn't get messy because the way the split would be is already decided and agreed upon.

That does make sense. Its not romantic, but its practical.

I would sign a prenup, but it would have to have all kinds of scenarios:

- if children are involved

- it would have to be fair ,etc...

 

I also told him, I would include a **** ton of cheating clauses that would screw him over if he eve cheated on me

not that he would, but hey everyone goes into a marriage thinking they wont get divorced (but they prepare for it with a prenup), so why not prepare for the "unlikely" case of cheating.

 

I defintely would sign a prenup that's fair to both of us. It really is not romantic, but I'm guessing divorce is hard enough, at least taking away the messiness of distributing/fighting over assets would be a good thing.

 

 

I like your post.l do think the problem is less people are willing to think of unromantic thoughts and think about the reality that a marriage involves so many other practicalities other than just the romance. Then many people are in for a rude awakening when they aren't able to cope with practical and logistical concerns. Hence I'm all for pre-marital counseling so people can get their heads out of the clouds and think about logistics and not just romance...since romance is only one part of the marriage equation.

 

I don't think signing a pre-nup will make you get divorced...in America over 50% of people divorce and I don't think pre nups had anything to do with it at all. I hear a lot of people say it's not romantic or it means you don't trust etc. when for me those aren't factors in me deciding that, that has nothing to do with my love and trust. A marriage is both a spiritual thing for me and also a legal contract that will change logistical things about my life, and in terms of the logistics, I think a prenup, just like signing a certificate, is one of the unromantic parts of marriage.Think about it, a wedding ceremony doesn't make you married, signing the paper does. The wedding is the romantic part that symbolizes your feelings, but isn't necessary and doesn't make you married, you can go to a court and marry because a legal marriage is about paper work and the government signing off on it, sooo not romantic lol. So I think of a prenup as one of the practical, unromantic parts of what a legal marriage is.

 

Reality is: I can't stop a man from cheating or from life happening and the relationship having to end for some reason, so why not have a practical measure in case? Most of us buy life insurance and car insurance not because we hope to die soon or crash, we buy it in case, but try to be careful so we don't have to use it

Edited July 5, 2012 by MissBee

[Silly_Girl]

I would sign one and expect him to be willing to as well.

 

Hell yes. I won't be co-habiting or marrying without a form of pre-nup.

[Silly_Girl]

OK, there are many many men out there under the impression that women only view them as a walking ATM, and an equal number of women denying it, although I have noticed on dating sites a lot of waitresses, and kindergarten teachers with photos on their profile from cruises, and European vacations, and the first thing on their list of demands is that a man be "a professional", and "financially secure". How many of you would honestly sign a pre-nup that would give him all that he had and contributed, and you all that you had and contributed. This would include making his retirement, and equity in any property already in his possession off limits to you, as well as no alimony for either party. Of course child support is separate, but lets say your not going to have kids. How many of you would marry the man you "love" if he handed you this?

 

I wish I'd signed one with my ex. I had a house and car, he had a loan. He stands a chance of getting 50% of everything even though my earnings were 3 times his in our 8 years. Oh yes, plus half the equity now I've decreased the mortgage by over 10k since we split.

 

Signing one wouldn't be about not trusting or loving someone, it would be to safeguard my finances for my son.

[Got it]

OK, there are many many men out there under the impression that women only view them as a walking ATM, and an equal number of women denying it, although I have noticed on dating sites a lot of waitresses, and kindergarten teachers with photos on their profile from cruises, and European vacations, and the first thing on their list of demands is that a man be "a professional", and "financially secure". How many of you would honestly sign a pre-nup that would give him all that he had and contributed, and you all that you had and contributed. This would include making his retirement, and equity in any property already in his possession off limits to you, as well as no alimony for either party. Of course child support is separate, but lets say your not going to have kids. How many of you would marry the man you "love" if he handed you this?

 

I am perfectly fine with it as I have proposed a prenup for my upcoming marriage. I see a prenup as a way to figure out the divorce, if it were to happen, while you still like each other. You hammer out the different scenarios so it is fair and equatable towards both parties. Would one go into business with a partner with a contract? Marriage, while is based on love, does also have your personal finances wrapped up in it. Just good sense to me.

 

In regards to your scenario it would depend on my situation, finances, and what would be equatable to both parties.

[Got it]

And I think that with the percent of marriages that do divorce and the small number who actually get prenups, I doubt there is a high likelihood based on the fact of getting a prenup.

 

Why the assume that the man makes the money? Like other posters here I make more than him and I have more assets.

 

What I want to have figured out is if one party decides to stay home with kids, which in our talks would probably be him, that party would be compensated for the time out of the workforce, the suspension of the advancement of their career, etc. That is a huge sacrifice and should be protected at a higher rate than what the law mandates.

 

It isn't/shouldn't be about trying to screw anyone. But it should be about what is fair.

 

If I was with someone that made substantially more than me, I wouldn't mind signing one. I am self sufficient.

[OpenBook]

Yes, absolutely I would sign one - as long as he signs the EXACT SAME agreement in reverse.

 

I wonder about a couple things though. (I've never seen a prenup up close & personal.) Would the same prenup agreement protect BOTH parties, or would you have to do a separate one for each person? Also, what about money & other assets acquired DURING the marriage - does a prenup cover how that's divvied up?