Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Female here, I have a prenup. Never got any shame for it. Women can bring assets into a marriage as well ya know.
It's great that you gave us your opinion on the matter but let me remind you why your post seems to be clueless. I'll try to separate my reminder into two major points, historical review and current trends of prenuptial agreements: 1. History of prenuptial agreements. Such agreements were inroduced into legal system to protect women from opportunistic and/or incomeptent men, as well as to protect women's interests. Research about the fact that the woman was seen as a perpetual minor if married and this meant that her husband would be the sole person responible over her inheritance. Women were given large dowry at the time as a way to "pay out" and to "buy prospective husbands" and this also meant that married woman's male-line relatives (former clan) would be relieved of any responsibility once a woman marries into a new clan, but her new family (especially a husband) could be a lazy bum or an idiot who gambles away her dowry.
Since any legal contract among a future wife and husband would be void once they marry due to way property was handled, such agreements were initially signed among woman's father and her future husband. Once the 19th century and women's movement gave woman a legal status of an adult in front of law, prenuptial agreements immediately switched to those among wives and husbands. Almost all of these agreements were exclusively signed among wealthy brides or brides with large dowries and much less affluent men. Women were NOT shamed at any point of it and such practice was de-facto a norm and went without any second thought for either a wife or husband. Don't mistake it that men were NOT opportunistic of woman's wealth - marriage was not known as a man's most important economical decision and not even feminism shamed men (or their families) to stop demanding or expecting large dowries - it only stopped once the inheritance reform treated dowries as gifts while giving women the right to inherit property of her former clan, among other things (another crucial change was the way the private property could be handled in case of clans - which effectively meant that the official owner could sell the land and the home in which the whole clan resided). This gave rise to a trend where bride's families abruptly started giving small dowry or refused to give any dowry at all... and such trend gave the new trend of "bridal showers" - where other relatives and friends would give small parts to make other family "accept" the bride. Take note - husband and his male-line relatives (including nephews) were obliged to take responsibility over any woman in "their clan" and this norm was only substituted with the introduction of alimony, many decades later.
2. Prenuptial agreements were never successfully contested until recent decades. As you might have though of it, a number of men tried to challenge prenuptial agreements or fairness regarding dowry and the way the legal system handled such agreements or gifts - but to no avail. Courts regularly gave nothing to husbands and this gave the norm of men not even contesting such agreements - especially given the court practices to use previous cases to justify their rulings. This all changed in 20th century, especially the 2nd part of it - when marriages became very volatile and when more and more men started issuing such agreements to protect their assets. The same courts magically started giving out excuses to void such prenuptial agreements under various pretexts: being under 21 (age of majority was 21 at the time and it got lowered solely so that more meat fodder is sent to front-lines, believe it or not, which is why lawmakers in many countries never cared enough to synchronize the laws that regulate alcohol consumption), being under stress, being given unfair or unreasonable conditions, etc. In today's world, prenuptial agreements are just as likely to be voided as they are likely to be honored by courts, especially if you're a guy trying to protect your assets.
If you doubt this case, please notice the discrepancy in attention that is solely focused on women taunting men for voicing their concerns on why they think marriage should be outlawed or tossed out of legal system, or why they'd demand a prenuptial agreement in case of marriage. General audience and public media behave the same way, despite the increasing trend of wealthy men handing the prenuptial agreement to their future spouses, if they get married at all.
It's not as if women don't have any valuable assets, as if women don't have valid reasons to protect their assets or as if women don't do that. There is roughly the same amount of rich inheritors of both gender and there might be more women among rich heirs, actually - given that women generally live longer. Unlike popular opinion, courts in many countries do often rule out in favor of splitting the inherited property, under various pretexts. I.e. you used the revenues to finance your mutual lifestyle, or you lived in your inherited property can and does mean that your spouse can make a legal claim on a portion of such income or asset in many places.
Once again, the fact of the matter is that society, the media and everyone in general is telling women to protect their best interests while they shame and harass men who even think of doing the same.
Course of this thread and the way the media approaches the topic, as well as the way courts approach the topic and issue their verdicts are all valid ways to point out this obvious bias.
And before I conclude this case, let me remind you of this as well: being a billionaire means that your spouse can make a claim on one of your homes that you lived in. You can live with it, easily. Imagine the average, middle-aged folks who inherited or bought a house on their own. Imagine such guys being tossed out in the open, or being forced to "live with their siblings" or someone else - because their ex wives are staying in "jointly-owned" house, while demanding child support as well. If you ever thought how devastating it is, just observe the trend of increasing female homelessness as the legislators in many states brought the new norm - where the "joint property" is usually sold in the end and both ex husband and wife are forced to seek for new place after selling the property that they didn't even paid off in full. This trend started since late 1980s and exploded in 1990s and it became the sole reason why hundreds of billions of dollars are now being used to fund subsidized housing projects that almost solely get populated with single moms, to tackle the issue.
Yes they sure can. They wont get shamed for wanting to protect it, however. 97% of all alimony money is from men to women. Family court also heavily favors women when it comes to divorce, and child custody arrangments.
There's no reason for men to be shamed. There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect what is yours. If someone feels it is shameful, that is their problem.
97% of all alimony money is from men to women. Family court also heavily favors women when it comes to divorce, and child custody arrangments.
I disagree. Maybe that's the case in some places, but here, fathers are getting a big share of custody, even at the expense of the children (who may only be used to time alone with mom). And there's a reason women get more alimony: they're more often staying home to raise children, or earning less money than their husbands. In cases where the woman earns more, she's likely to be paying.
This coming from someone who absolutely wouldn't change his name, in the name of tradition, right? But it's shallow to not want to change your name when the new name would sound stupid or ridiculous? This has nothing to do with man hating. This has to do with the name that a person is going to live with for the rest of his/her life (barring divorce). It makes no sense to adopt a weird-sounding name combo when it's no longer necessary.
What tradition are you referring to where the guy takes the woman's last name???
You are desperately grasping at straws to try to support your unfounded position and hide your man hatred
I disagree. Maybe that's the case in some places, but here, fathers are getting a big share of custody, even at the expense of the children (who may only be used to time alone with mom). And there's a reason women get more alimony: they're more often staying home to raise children, or earning less money than their husbands. In cases where the woman earns more, she's likely to be paying.
Not to mention the thousands of divorces that don't involve alimony. Or the cases where the woman has to pay the husband alimony. Divorce, alimony, custody etc... while not perfect are far more equally balanced than they used to be.
I disagree. Maybe that's the case in some places, but here, fathers are getting a big share of custody, even at the expense of the children (who may only be used to time alone with mom).
Where exactly do you live where the majority of men are getting alimony from women and men are taking womens last names
Quote:
And there's a reason women get more alimony: they're more often staying home to raise children, or earning less money than their husbands. In cases where the woman earns more, she's likely to be paying.
That's a choice, and then they become unemployable, and the ex has to pay because she's unemployable... lovely system we have here, right?
Not to mention the thousands of divorces that don't involve alimony. Or the cases where the woman has to pay the husband alimony. Divorce, alimony, custody etc... while not perfect are far more equally balanced than they used to be.
Most divorces with no alimony involve couples with no assets, not a pot to **** in so to speak... or even loads of debt, that's fun to sort out
Maybe it's just me and I may be a bit jaded or fearful of money when it comes to women, but after my last relationship experience, which I posted about before on here:
I was wondering what your thoughts on the issue were in case the relationship went sour? In my experience I have quite a bit more money than the average woman my age it seems. Mostly I saved up a lot and worked a over the last decade, to buy a house and make movies with since I am an aspiring filmmaker trying to break into the business, which costs money.
But even when I mention the word pre-nup to both my women and men friends, they act like it's a sin to ask that of your spouse, or if you do, it means you don't really love her! They said they would never sign one, nor never ask, and I am out of line for thinking that way.
But what do you think? Is it fair to ask in circumstances, just in case something goes sour, and yet at the same time, it can still be fair of your partner, especially if you happen to have a lot more money than him/her?
A pre-nup is insulting I would say to 99.9% of women. My buddy who actually got married later in life when he already made around $500,000 a year, owned around one million in real estate (equity) and had around one million in stocks asked his future spouse how she felt about pre-nups and she was like I would never marry a man who did not trust me and had to ask for one.. She basically had a net worth of zero. But was very hot, ten years younger and he liked her family a lot.
He went to his lawyer who told him. Your Million dollar SoHo condo is in your name alone, Your Porsche your name alone, your bank and stock account your name alone. If you get divorced and had no kids, marriage is less then ten years, since she is young, healthy and has a college degree the most she could get is 50% of the money you made during the marriage. She is not entitled in NY to anything in your name pre-marriage. It is not a community property state.
He also added the pre-nup if your marriage is over ten years, you have kids is pretty worthless. And by the way she said she does not want to sign a pre-nup, you have been dating several years, you promised to marry her, she has never cheated on you. And now you force upon her you will back out without a pre-nup and have her sign a pre-nup no legal representation or the wedding does not happen and she ends up with egg on her face. Yea good luck with that.
As your lawyer I recommend no pre-nup and if you feel you need one don't marry her.
Guess what that was 2005. They now crossed ten years, had a kid and moved to California, a community property state. He is worth maybe 20 million today. Wow if they got divorced he still have ten million an amazing ten years of sex with a super hot young wife and has a son who looks like a model, he is at best average looking but his kid got a lot of the good looking genes.
He is now 53 and wife is 43 so she did give up the best years. At 43, divorced with a kid her hotness is about to fade and she no longer can ever get a rich single guy to marry her. She earned the ten million .
At 43, divorced with a kid her hotness is about to fade and she no longer can ever get a rich single guy to marry her. She earned the ten million .
That's a really bizzare way to look at it. She gets to live a millionaires lifestyle for 10 years and walks away with 10 mil and probably a house, for what? Laying on her back and pushing out a kid?
Yes they sure can. They wont get shamed for wanting to protect it, however. 97% of all alimony money is from men to women. Family court also heavily favors women when it comes to divorce, and child custody arrangments.
Do we really need a sticky to explain this.
The majority of men earn more than women. The majority of women sacrifice their careers to care for the children, thus losing earnings and earning potential. A small percentage of people receive alimony. Alimony is temporary.
Women most often get custodial custody...because...see above bold. It is women who cares for the kids, takes them to Dr., knows their teachers and friends, school and activity schedule, sits up with them when they are sick, knows their allergies, what foods they like, their favorite color, their fears, etc. etc. When more men become primary care givers to their children you will (are) seeing a change in custody arrangements. Its about the kids.
As far as family court favoring women, divorce laws are not gender specific. Family court favors the one that puts forth the most effort and has the best attorney.
Honestly I dont think anyone is shamed for trying to protect their assets.
What I find disturbing is people worrying about protecting what they dont have, or joint assets. Its seem some, men especially, don't understand that marriage is a partnership and both work together to secure a home, savings, assets and future. This may mean one is the breadwinner while the other cares for everything else so that one can earn the bread, it may be both are breadwinners but the bottom line is they work together to build a life, complementing each other and making live easier and better for each other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
