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.
I don't have any problem with people's desire to protect their assets. I have a bit of a problem with people who choose to marry people who they know will be completely dependent of them financially.
I used to work in family law. Invariably, the cases where assets had to be sold off and divided were those in which one spouse, usually the man, was vastly wealthier than the other. I understand wanting to protect one's assets. But what a lot of wealthier spouses resent is the loss of power. They were used to getting their way in their marriages because they were wealthier. What they resent is not being able to leave their exes totally desperate and destitute as a punishment for leaving them.
Yes. Just don't get married at all if you're vastly wealthier and paranoid, or marry someone who's just as wealthy.
It's clever theoretical advice for persons of similar assets/incomes to marry each other, but attainable practice is much more complicated. Let's assume that such a match is readily possible. Well, as the mutual-fund ads say, "past performance is no guarantee of future returns". One spouse might be more frugal than the other. One might be a cavalier risk-taker, and the other staunchly risk-averse. Their fortunes diverge, even if beginning identically. Ought the one be liable for the other's mistakes? Ought one receive the benefits from the other's wise and successful investments?
But equal matches are rarely possible, especially if we eschew family-introductions as whiffing too much like arranged marriages. Dating-success becomes far more a function of social prowess. Resulting matches are bound to be unequal, especially if conducted later in life.
Does all of this imply that marriage should be avoided, as risk doesn't justify reward? I'm not so dour. And yet one wonders how to balance the desire for a successful marriage with the substantial financial risks. If we're going to redefine marriage as emotion-based and aimed at mutual happiness, as opposed to a business transaction aimed at securing the family's property, then we also need to redefine the preconditions for marriage.
If you were going to be getting married and had substantial assets and the other did not have much would you bring your assets into the marriage or would you keep it separately? What if the other person wanted your existing assets to be brought into the marriage and thought that keeping stuff separately was against the spirit of a marriage? Would you do it?
Honestly, I don't know if I'd be comfortable marrying a guy who had substantially less assets than I did. I don't think I'd even entertain a serious relationship with him. Apart from the fact that I grew up in a traditional society and still hold onto the ideals that the man must be the breadwinner, I have also found that when I did deviate from that in the past to date a guy with less assets than myself, it didn't work.
Why?
Because the guy ended up feeling emasculated and resentful that I had more. I suspect that deep down, many men want to be the providers and feel like they can take care of their families. When they have a woman doing that stuff, they start feeling un-needed and less than. Some even try to bring you down.
And before I catch flak, notice I said "many", not "all" men. There are some guys who don't mind and some who deliberately seek wealthier women for their own motives..
But back to the topic. Everyone should do what they feel comfortable doing. I can understand why someone would try to protect their hard earned assets. Have you seen what's going on in the world today? Prenups may not be romantic, but they can provide someone with a measure of comfort in this very uncertain world.
My first wife wanted to mingle everything and then keep "the power of the purse". She listed many of her own discretionary expenditures as household items for which we were both responsible. (Her horses were household items, my sailing expenses were mine to pay alone). Knowing enough not to fight, this created an incentive to maintain a small amount of cash, off the books, for my own discretionary spending.
With my second wife, we keep separate accounts, and do not pry into each others' finances, but since she never asks for money, I am generous.
To the OP: Keep in mind, that pre nups have been thrown out in divorce court because the wife said she signed it under duress. In other words, they are not worth the paper they're written on. Be very careful that the woman you marry is not after your assets.
I could philosophize all day about what it would mean for a man or woman to insist on keeping their assets separate; is it a lack of trust? If such is a lack of trust - why marry at all?
I'm not a huge advocator of marriage for those like me, who are child-free and have no pressing need to bend to the norms of society. That being said, I do love the idea of partnership and commitment. I also value most my partner's trust in me. I want him to trust me to be honest, faithful, and also trust that I will not grab for what he has, even if my lack gets overwhelming. Perhaps I am broke, but I am independently broke, and it is not his duty to support me in a marriage or otherwise. The idea of prenup pricks my emotions not because my partner would expect to keep his assets protected, but because I am not trusted. Then again, if something is so important to a partner, perhaps it is best to give him/her what gives them the best peace of mind, which will in turn allow them the freedom to love without feeling that they are paying into a partnership. I have no problem entering into a relationship with the knowledge that when I leave I will leave with only my own gains. I did not work for his, he did not work for mine.
Why do we have this fantasy of "two become one flesh"? Isn't two working together just as potent? Two beams support a home better than one.
What they resent is not being able to leave their exes totally desperate and destitute as a punishment for leaving them.
We are not talking about leaving someone destitute. I think anyone with an ounce of ethics will support a transition of their spouse so that they get back on their feet especially if they have contributed to the marriage.
What we are talking about here is that IF the woman can support herself financially just fine, even then alimony will be awarded so as to "preserve the marital standard of living". This defies logic as when the marriage is dissolved the marital standard is dissolved as well...period! The laws are downright asinine.
It's clever theoretical advice for persons of similar assets/incomes to marry each other, but attainable practice is much more complicated. Let's assume that such a match is readily possible. Well, as the mutual-fund ads say, "past performance is no guarantee of future returns". One spouse might be more frugal than the other. One might be a cavalier risk-taker, and the other staunchly risk-averse. Their fortunes diverge, even if beginning identically. Ought the one be liable for the other's mistakes? Ought one receive the benefits from the other's wise and successful investments?
But equal matches are rarely possible, especially if we eschew family-introductions as whiffing too much like arranged marriages. Dating-success becomes far more a function of social prowess. Resulting matches are bound to be unequal, especially if conducted later in life.
Does all of this imply that marriage should be avoided, as risk doesn't justify reward? I'm not so dour. And yet one wonders how to balance the desire for a successful marriage with the substantial financial risks. If we're going to redefine marriage as emotion-based and aimed at mutual happiness, as opposed to a business transaction aimed at securing the family's property, then we also need to redefine the preconditions for marriage.
What you are saying here is incorrect as well. Likes tend to go with likes and this is across the board. Marriage rates are up for succesful people who tend to be highly educated, in professional careers, which is typical for certain personality types. So, it's valid advice for a segment of people.
I would probably keep them separate but not forever.
People usually get married after about 2 years of relationship. For me, I don't feel that is enough time to really know someone, and to know how the relationship will go. But after we'd been together 5 or 10 years, it would seem silly to have things separate.
Another option is to delay getting married, but some people interpret that as being less interested.
Yup.
Very sensible. A marriage with almost a temp to perm period.
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.
