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.
Since you would INSIST on one, it would interest you to know that a prenup cannot be used to settle matters of custody or child support. Such prenup provisions are automatically void, and with good reason: your children don't get to sign the prenup; they don't get to review it; they aren't represented by lawyers at the signing; and they don't have a chance to say "no". It's a cardinal principle of contract law that a contract can only bind the signatories -- it cannot be enforced against third parties. So if you think you would "INSIST" on a prenup in order to disavow any progeny and walk away a childless bachelor, think again.
You missed the point completely and selectively quoted out of an entire post...there's a 40+ age comment toward the end, if I recall. Most women over 40 are past their reproductive years and theoretically should be looking for companionship and not child-rearing.
I DON'T want children. I have chosen not to have them because I don't want the 55+/-% chance that they won't come to my breakfast table throughout their childhood, as they typically do in traditional European Catholic immigrant households like the one I grew up in. I've also seen the difference between what my married friends who stayed together have provided for their offspring, which was far better than what my friends who divorced were able to put forth. For me, it's cultural. It does not make me popular. I understand that. But then, seeking to be popular was never my strong suit.
I would INSIST on a pre-nup at THIS point in my life, where having children would be unlikely.
Wow...you're on a combative binge with everybody on this topic. Amazing. Chill.
You missed the point completely and selectively quoted out of an entire post...there's a 40+ age comment toward the end, if I recall. Most women over 40 are past their reproductive years and theoretically should be looking for companionship and not child-rearing.
The way you worded your comment, it sounded as if you believe that a prenup is particularly useful because children might come of the marriage -- at which point I thought it was important to clarify that prenups cannot deal with children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertpolyglot
I DON'T want children.
Unfortunately, that's another thing a prenup won't ensure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertpolyglot
I have chosen not to have them because I don't want the 55+/-% chance that they won't come to my breakfast table
Whatever your reasons for not having children, the divorce rate isn't 55% -- it's actually lower than that and falling; and it's lower still for marriages that have minor children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertpolyglot
For me, it's cultural. It does not make me popular. I understand that. But then, seeking to be popular was never my strong suit.
As I've stated many times, I have no beef with people who choose not to reproduce or not to get married. My beef is with people who want to sit on two chairs simultaneously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertpolyglot
I would INSIST on a pre-nup at THIS point in my life, where having children would be unlikely.
Wow...you're on a combative binge with everybody on this topic. Amazing. Chill.
I have little patience for ignorance or disingenuousness. Whatever you insist on, the fact of life is that there are some things prenups just can't do. For me, it's a legal issue. Saying it does not make me popular. But then, seeking to be popular was never my strong suit.
""""So in the conversation I was the one that mentioned he shouldn't tell girls dollar amounts right away (b/c I wouldn't want him to be used for his money), and he should think about getting a pre-nup before marriage."""""
so what's the problem in signing the pre-nup?
ps: they aren't his kids so he shouldn't have to support them.
I never would ask him to support my kids!
I don't have a problem with signing a prenup. But goodness I've already had to "start over with nothing" once b/c of a divorce and I am busting @ss to get back on my feet. I am just trying to avoid that happening again - i.e. I am trying to protect myself.
Last edited by wilmingtonangel; 03-19-2009 at 03:05 PM..
So, Redisca, let's say a wealthy woman marries her personal trainer (just to differ from the omnipresent Lady Golddigger scenarios here) and they have a pre-nup. A few years down the line, he catches her having an affair with the pool guy. Are you saying that unless the pre-nup specifically said something like "adultery is a moot point," it could be anulled?
*Shrug* In that case, it's simply better not to get married. Prenup or no prenup, there is no sense in marrying someone you don't trust, someone that you believe has ulterior motives for marrying you, or someone that you treat as an adversary even before your wedding day. A prenup simply isn't designed to fill those gaps. If you are engaged to someone you view as a gold-digger or who you suspect might be a gold-digger, my advice is to do both of you a big favor and break it off. Honest-to-goodness legal advice here: not marrying is the absolute surest way to safeguard your assets.
The way you worded your comment, it sounded as if you believe that a prenup is particularly useful because children might come of the marriage -- at which point I thought it was important to clarify that prenups cannot deal with children.
Unfortunately, that's another thing a prenup won't ensure.
Whatever your reasons for not having children, the divorce rate isn't 55% -- it's actually lower than that and falling; and it's lower still for marriages that have minor children.
As I've stated many times, I have no beef with people who choose not to reproduce or not to get married. My beef is with people who want to sit on two chairs simultaneously.
I have little patience for ignorance or disingenuousness. Whatever you insist on, the fact of life is that there are some things prenups just can't do. For me, it's a legal issue. Saying it does not make me popular. But then, seeking to be popular was never my strong suit.
Wow, pretty impressive that a person with a doctorate would choose to quote me.
Location: Everybody is going to hurt you, you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for-B Marley
9,516 posts, read 20,005,830 times
Reputation: 9418
Quote:
Originally Posted by CESpeed
Because people in general are complex creatures, trust is not some thing that should be given easily. We can love someone dearly but they do something to disappoint us, people can get vicious and vindicative. What if you fall out of love? It happens. Why should the person who had money lose what they brought into a relationship simply because the relationship did not work out?
You pre-suppose that people will behave in a mature and rational fashion when the relationship ends. The truth is, most don't. A fair pre-nup already sorts out everything so both parties can simply walk away. No, you don't want to think that your marriage will end for any reason but the truth is, MORE THAN HALF DO. For millions of reasons.
I know me, I've known me for 40 years. I know that I don't want anyone's money, but I don't expect someone who's known me for a couple of years to not have doubts. I would rather give him peace of mind and start our lives and sign the pre-nup than lose someone who cares just because they have an insecurity. It's a legitimate insecurity. As has been pointed out several times: there are con artists who target wealthy people who are prepared to carry-on the charade for years to get a multi-million dollar pay day.
To those who are against pre-nups: Why are you so hell-bent on having unlimited access to money you didn't earn?
Actually, I don't pre-suppose any such thing--kind sir *. I come from a marriage that ended after 19 years. I just know that, for one, prenups can be and often are over-ruled; two, that life is full of uncertainies and unfairness and pain and disappointment. That's just life, it happens--even when you're busy trying to find ways around it--like prenups. If I felt I needed a prenup to marry someone, there would be no marriage, period. But that's just me. I'm against prenups but I couldn't give a ratsass about anyone's money. I knowingly and willingly walked away from the heir apparent of a million dollar estate asking for nothing. I just wanted out of the life of a selfish, self-absorbed man. That was worth a million dollars to me.
ETA that * to show I'm not tense. LOL
Last edited by Whyte Byrd; 03-19-2009 at 05:23 PM..
It does, because you argue from the position that men in marriages are both innocent of any wrongdoing and invariably earn all their wealth single-handedly, whereas women just watch soap operas all day.
Nope, you just chose to read that into my posts. In the case of the OP the guy is presumed to already have wealth before the relationship started. It doesn't make me a woman-hater for using that very example. The woman watching soap operas all day was just an example. I personally know of several women who did jack squat once married; it's not that uncommon.
Quote:
Fair ones? How do you define a fair prenup?
You know it when you see it. In the example I gave, the woman being limited to $200K per year (of net worth gain) from a pre-existing business is more than fair, assuming she does nothing more, and has to put up with no more, than a typical spouse does.
Quote:
Besides, I realize all guys on the Internet are super-wealthy and beset by legions of greedy supermodels, but in reality, you are talking about a very tiny fraction of the general population.
Super-wealth isn't required, just a high income from pre-existing assets/skills.
Quote:
As I said before, if she's watching soap operas all day because her husband's business required her to abandon her career and move to Timbuktu, $200K is definitely NOT fair.
I disagree, unless it really is Timbuktu, in Africa, or her career could make $100K+. If she's moving from one US state to another and was capable of making only $50K per year, $200K is a great deal for her.
Quote:
Look, there are certain situations in which a prenup makes sense. But in every situation, a prenup creates a very strong disincentive to cooperate and promote the career of one's spouse -- because under a prenup, you actually get punished for investing your own time and money in your spouse.
Maybe in every situation you've seen. In the example above, I don't see how an extra $150K per year (quadrupling her income) for moving to another state is punishment.
She's a lawyer in the greater NYC area. Is it any wonder she's manipulative? She's probably got some anger issues to boot. Watch "Primal Fear," which I did for the first time this weekend because a co-worker lent me some movies, and ask yourself whether you'd date Miss Venable, played by Laura Linney. Is it any wonder Richard Gere got the milk but didn't buy the cow? (My apologies for any offense to the women on this sub-forum who know me as being fairly sensible and level-headed).
Just look at how she breaks up the responses to the posts and argues as hard as nails.
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.
