Pre nups

McCloud1

SanguineSteve wrote: »

Alimony is shockingly unfair and draconian. It's not fit for purpose in 2015 in my opinion.

I can't stand this "If this is something you're thinking about, then you shouldn't be getting married" It suggests that you should leave your brain on the aisle for the sake of luuurve. (Marriage is of itself, totally outdated too if you ask me... that's for another time though).

Almost half of all marriages fail for one reason or another. So, it's prudent to want to protect the assets you accrued before you met someone. Now that co-habiting couples are subject to almost the same 'rights' as married ones, I would see it fit that pre-nups become more common place.

This.

Why is being aware of the overwhelmingly high divorce rate and accordingly taking a realistic approach to protect your assets considered negative? In addition to protecting each persons interests, having binding, enforceable pre-nups would result in much cheaper, cleaner divorces.

Personally I'm just not going to ever get married, but see nothing wrong with there being a mechanism in place for people to fence off what they aren't prepared to lose.

Mojisola

itsanne wrote: »

You're missing the point. There's no need to get married, other than for the legal bits. If you don't want the legal bits, don't get married. It's not rocket science.

(As it happens, I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of protecting assets accrued before marriage.)

If the marriage is 'short' (which used to mean about two years but now stretches to five years) and there aren't any children, both parties will usually leave with what they brought to the marriage.

If you're not fully committed to your spouse after five years and willing to share your time, energy, money and love, you probably shouldn't have got married.

Pollycat

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Here's a completely radical and non-Victorian take on the subject -what if the man does those things too?

Nice attitude to assume the man does none of that, really nice.

I based my response on what the OP said in his first post.

It was he (not me) who talked about putting money & possessions into a relationship and his (imaginary I guess) wife not contributing towards the mortgage etc.

Pollycat

SanguineSteve wrote: »

Alimony is shockingly unfair and draconian. It's not fit for purpose in 2015 in my opinion.

What nationality are you?

'Alimony' is a term not used in the UK.

And very few women are awarded spousal maintenance when they get divorced.

McCloud1

Mojisola wrote: »

If the marriage is 'short' (which used to mean about two years but now stretches to five years) and there aren't any children, both parties will usually leave with what they brought to the marriage.

If you're not fully committed to your spouse after five years and willing to share your time, energy, money and love, you probably shouldn't have got married.

You appear to be advocating hindsight over foresight? What use is finding out in 5 years time? There are plenty of stories on here of unhappy marriages lasting far longer.

itsanne

Mojisola wrote: »

If the marriage is 'short' (which used to mean about two years but now stretches to five years) and there aren't any children, both parties will usually leave with what they brought to the marriage.

If you're not fully committed to your spouse after five years and willing to share your time, energy, money and love, you probably shouldn't have got married.

Absolutely!

I hadn't realised that 'short' now went up to five years. At forty years it's a bit academic.

Alikay

I think they're worth thinking about if either or both parties have dependent children from previous relationships.

Mojisola

McCloud1 wrote: »

You appear to be advocating hindsight over foresight? What use is finding out in 5 years time? There are plenty of stories on here of unhappy marriages lasting far longer.

No, I'm just stating how things are dealt with at the moment.

People can chose to stay in an unhappy marriage or to leave.

People can chose to live together without marrying or to make the legal commitment to each other.

Personally, I don't think you should get married unless you are willing to share everything equally. From the time we got married, everything was joint. In the years since, sometimes one of us brought in more than the other, sometimes one of us was doing a greater share of the child-rearing and homecare but we're a team and things even out.

Pollycat

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Here's a completely radical and non-Victorian take on the subject -what if the man does those things too?

Nice attitude to assume the man does none of that, really nice.

I remembered the OP (and his opinions of women) from an earlier thread:

[simon] wrote: »

Women:

As for women. In my opinion, Women are here to reproduce, not to work, not be more successful than a male, but to look after kids. The male does the work. The troubble is women are been given too much power, they now choose the male, they now have the money and work to be independent and leave the male. They also use sex as a weapon. This in all slows down reproduction. The women should stay at home.

I dont agree that women choose a male, the male should choose the women. And thats exactly what i do. A successful business women may not choose me, but i would not choose her for reasons i have mentioned above. The kind of women i choose are low on self confidence, don't have much a d wont have much, the kind of women who agrees the man takes control. They are less likley to leave also. I am happy to settle down with this type of women.

The buesiness women look nice yes, with there boots and skits ect, but i don't choose them for a relationship. At the end of the day they have to let their hair down, weekends in the clubs, when they have one too many and thats when you take advantage of the sort. And thats all thats needed to be fair. The ones that i settle with are ones who don't have an answer back. Its common phycology to be honest. So saying that a women wont look at me in my 30 / 40 years is a joke. I don't relay on them looking at me or wanting me, i take the ones who need me because they have nothing else. Win win.

The kind of friends i have and my social circle was mentioned. My social circle is make up of quiet, low self esteem people, i stand out with them, hence i attract girls that are also like that.

As for the car, i need the car at the moment, but when i get my own place i will probably ditch it. Or buy a ten year old run about.

Honesly the comments on extra income and jobs and training made me laugh. Some people must be working so,e right hours and then they moan because they pay too much tax !!! No body is forcing anyone to work ! If you decide to go to uni or other study and have it programmed in to you to work for other peoples benefit that is your own problem.

Just my opinions there.

Thank you for the replies and the help.

Nice, eh?

I assure you that if I hadn't read that load of chauvinistic clap-trap from the OP, my reply in post # 2 would have been very different.

Maybe it's the OP whom you should be taking to task for his 'Victorian take' on women in the 21st Century.....

Caroline_a

Personally I've always preferred men who can spell... and I've never worn a skit... He sounds like a real catch doesn't he!