Are prenuptial agreements fair and necessary in today's society or are they a jinx on a marriage and an insult to your supposed life partner? Should poor people bother with prenups or are those just for the rich?

Converse. sans carbs

Are prenuptial agreements fair and necessary in today's society?

Absolutely.

Harlepolis said:

Are prenuptial agreements fair and necessary in today's society?

Absolutely.

So you would not be opposed to signing one if your mate required it? You wouldn't fee like your marriage was automatically going to be short term?

I would never marry anyone in the first place who I didn't feel would make a significant contribution (fiscal or otherwise) to our relationship.

I think it depends on what the two people have going into the marriage. If one or both have something worth protecting, it makes practical sense. Not just a big bank account, but also against debt. I have heard of pre-nups being signed so one partner does not assume the debt the other had when they go into the marriage. Something to consider for sure.

HotGritz said:

Harlepolis said:

Are prenuptial agreements fair and necessary in today's society?

Absolutely.

So you would not be opposed to signing one if your mate required it?

No, because I would require him to sign one too.

I don't think its that cynical.

Of course, all of this conversation would have some weight of either of us are rich

CarrieMpls said:

I think it depends on what the two people have going into the marriage. If one or both have something worth protecting, it makes practical sense. Not just a big bank account, but also against debt. I have heard of pre-nups being signed so one partner does not assume the debt the other had when they go into the marriage. Something to consider for sure.

That's a good point, I've heard a couple of stories about folks being dumped with their spouse's debt, and the spouse long gone. In today's time, yep, necessary.

Prenup?

Shit, I'm raising 3 children alone, my bills are paid, I have zero debt and my eldest is 20 going to a great school with a full scholarship... one down, two more to go.

I have a clean house, and an easy life, I make my own rules, eat what I want and I don't have to share my comfy bed. Or compromise with anything in my household.

I fuck a beautiful man with a big dick twice/three times a week and don't cook him shit, hell.... he's lucky if I let him get a glass of water before I kick his sexy ass out my house after we fuck.

Who needs marriage in this day and age? Men really only want trophy wives these days, and I'm to fat to fit in the dress. Screw it, I'll toss the apron away and run naked and happy instead...

maybe I'll marry after my children are grown, maybe then....

HotGritz said:

Are prenuptial agreements fair and necessary in today's society or are they a jinx on a marriage and an insult to your supposed life partner? Should poor people bother with prenups or are those just for the rich?

Converse. sans carbs

You're damn right prenups are necesssary regardless of class! Without them, if a marriage ends in divorce, the woman will be demanding (more than?) half of the man's wealth.

If u have assets.............U would be a FOOL not 2 have one.

PERIOD.

Meh, I'd never marry...but if I did, I'd have no issues with one.

I am not exactly a fan of marriage, but it might be necessary for me to marry sometime in the future and if I do I probably should have one.

[Edited 2/4/11 11:21am]

Pre-nups are to protect what you had before you got married. Once you say “I do” every new asset gained belongs to you both. That’s why you can file taxes together and such – you are a partnership. If you don’t wish to agree to such an arrangement, you should not get married.

If two people who are married agree to live on only one person’s income, for example, they still equally deserve half of what has amassed while they are together. It’s the arrangement that was made.

I think not getting married takes care of most of the issues prenups cover. But in some cases, as already mentioned, its not a bad idea to set something up to protect your assets (or assign ownership of debt) even if you're not going to get married. See, the thing is, a majority of all people who get married get divorced. And in a good number of those divorces somebody ends up being unhappy with (or ruined by) the division of assets/debts. Why not protect yourself if you know thats the case beforehand.

CarrieMpls said:

Pre-nups are to protect what you had before you got married. Once you say “I do” every new asset gained belongs to you both. That’s why you can file taxes together and such – you are a partnership. If you don’t wish to agree to such an arrangement, you should not get married.

If two people who are married agree to live on only one person’s income, for example, they still equally deserve half of what has amassed while they are together. It’s the arrangement that was made.

Yes and no. It can be argued that one person did no work and therefor deserves none of the reward. That's often the only reason people end up in divorce court - so the judge can decide how much (if any) should be given to one side or the other. It's really not cut and dry at all. And there's so many laws that very from state to state. Bah! Just don't get married!

Cerebus said:

CarrieMpls said:

Pre-nups are to protect what you had before you got married. Once you say “I do” every new asset gained belongs to you both. That’s why you can file taxes together and such – you are a partnership. If you don’t wish to agree to such an arrangement, you should not get married.

If two people who are married agree to live on only one person’s income, for example, they still equally deserve half of what has amassed while they are together. It’s the arrangement that was made.

Yes and no. It can be argued that one person did no work and therefor deserves none of the reward. That's often the only reason people end up in divorce court - so the judge can decide how much (if any) should be given to one side or the other. It's really not cut and dry at all. And there's so many laws that very from state to state. Bah! Just don't get married!

..now u tell me.

Graycap23 said:

Cerebus said:

Yes and no. It can be argued that one person did no work and therefor deserves none of the reward. That's often the only reason people end up in divorce court - so the judge can decide how much (if any) should be given to one side or the other. It's really not cut and dry at all. And there's so many laws that very from state to state. Bah! Just don't get married!

..now u tell me.

We must not have had much interaction on Prince sites in the last decade or so. If we had I'm SURE I would have told you before now.

I'm a huge double standard.

If I was rich you bet your ass I'd demand one.

If someone else was asking ME to signone, I'd be offended.

Harlepolis said:

Are prenuptial agreements fair and necessary in today's society?

Absolutely.

paintedlady said:

Prenup?

Shit, I'm raising 3 children alone, my bills are paid, I have zero debt and my eldest is 20 going to a great school with a full scholarship... one down, two more to go.

I have a clean house, and an easy life, I make my own rules, eat what I want and I don't have to share my comfy bed. Or compromise with anything in my household.

I fuck a beautiful man with a big dick twice/three times a week and don't cook him shit, hell.... he's lucky if I let him get a glass of water before I kick his sexy ass out my house after we fuck.

Who needs marriage in this day and age? Men really only want trophy wives these days, and I'm to fat to fit in the dress. Screw it, I'll toss the apron away and run naked and happy instead...

maybe I'll marry after my children are grown, maybe then....

too

Cerebus said:

Graycap23 said:

..now u tell me.

We must not have had much interaction on Prince sites in the last decade or so. If we had I'm SURE I would have told you before now.

Cerebus said:

CarrieMpls said:

Pre-nups are to protect what you had before you got married. Once you say “I do” every new asset gained belongs to you both. That’s why you can file taxes together and such – you are a partnership. If you don’t wish to agree to such an arrangement, you should not get married.

If two people who are married agree to live on only one person’s income, for example, they still equally deserve half of what has amassed while they are together. It’s the arrangement that was made.

Yes and no. It can be argued that one person did no work and therefor deserves none of the reward. That's often the only reason people end up in divorce court - so the judge can decide how much (if any) should be given to one side or the other. It's really not cut and dry at all. And there's so many laws that very from state to state. Bah! Just don't get married!

It can be argued, sure, but generally the idea is that if one person's bringing in an income the other person is bringing other things to the relationship and you've agreed that that's how it's going to work. The person not bringing in an income has forgone working due to this arrangment and deserves equitable distribution.

I understand how folks can argue about this but when you're married you are supposed to get "half" for a reason. It was designed as a protection measure so women who devote their lives to maintaining home and children aren't left with nothing and no way to support themselves when their husband decides that he wants a 21 year old girlfriend instad of a 40-something wife and she's given up all chance of a career because that's what they agreed upon when they got married.

You go to court to prove someone doesn't "deserve" half, like you said. And there are most certainly cases of that.

CarrieMpls said:

Cerebus said:

Yes and no. It can be argued that one person did no work and therefor deserves none of the reward. That's often the only reason people end up in divorce court - so the judge can decide how much (if any) should be given to one side or the other. It's really not cut and dry at all. And there's so many laws that very from state to state. Bah! Just don't get married!

It can be argued, sure, but generally the idea is that if one person's bringing in an income the other person is bringing other things to the relationship and you've agreed that that's how it's going to work. The person not bringing in an income has forgone working due to this arrangment and deserves equitable distribution.

I understand how folks can argue about this but when you're married you are supposed to get "half" for a reason. It was designed as a protection measure so women who devote their lives to maintaining home and children aren't left with nothing and no way to support themselves when their husband decides that he wants a 21 year old girlfriend instad of a 40-something wife and she's given up all chance of a career because that's what they agreed upon when they got married.

You go to court to prove someone doesn't "deserve" half, like you said. And there are most certainly cases of that.

My Ex hisband and I agreed that once we had children I would stay home with them and manage them and the household. I worked up until that point.

He didn't even try to argue that I shouldn't get half, because I'm sure his lawyer told him that, that was what I was entitled to by law. As did my lawyer.

What his lawyer DID tell him though was that you can't get blood from a stone. If you sell off assetts and claim the money is just GONE and they can't trace it, your wife will spend a lot of money on lawyers fee's trying to get it back. Which is what was happening, so I said fuck you and and your money and walked away.

BUT, by law, yes I was entitled to half of everything, even though I hadn't "worked" for it. Which I did, but thats another story....

Pre-nups, in general, don't prevent a spouse from getting half of the assets acquired during a marriage. That's typically fair game, regardless of who the primary breadwinner is, depending on each state's laws.

CarrieMpls said:

Cerebus said:

Yes and no. It can be argued that one person did no work and therefor deserves none of the reward. That's often the only reason people end up in divorce court - so the judge can decide how much (if any) should be given to one side or the other. It's really not cut and dry at all. And there's so many laws that very from state to state. Bah! Just don't get married!

It can be argued, sure, but generally the idea is that if one person's bringing in an income the other person is bringing other things to the relationship and you've agreed that that's how it's going to work. The person not bringing in an income has forgone working due to this arrangment and deserves equitable distribution.

I understand how folks can argue about this but when you're married you are supposed to get "half" for a reason. It was designed as a protection measure so women who devote their lives to maintaining home and children aren't left with nothing and no way to support themselves when their husband decides that he wants a 21 year old girlfriend instad of a 40-something wife and she's given up all chance of a career because that's what they agreed upon when they got married.

You go to court to prove someone doesn't "deserve" half, like you said. And there are most certainly cases of that.

......... never mind.... I just started in on a couple thousand word essay. Highlight, backspace. I'm just gonna walk away instead. Most people wouldn't have read it and most of those who did would have misunderstood it or angrily disagreed. Why bother? The short version is that I find a lot of what you wrote right there to be insulting, presumptive and contradictory in regards to everything "feminism" is supposed to stand for.

Edit: Highlight, not Highligh. I hate spelling errors even more when I've had no sleep.

[Edited 2/4/11 12:10pm]

I think that anyone who doesn't get one should have their head read.

paintedlady said:

Prenup?

Shit, I'm raising 3 children alone, my bills are paid, I have zero debt and my eldest is 20 going to a great school with a full scholarship... one down, two more to go.

I have a clean house, and an easy life, I make my own rules, eat what I want and I don't have to share my comfy bed. Or compromise with anything in my household.

I fuck a beautiful man with a big dick twice/three times a week and don't cook him shit, hell.... he's lucky if I let him get a glass of water before I kick his sexy ass out my house after we fuck.

Who needs marriage in this day and age? Men really only want trophy wives these days, and I'm to fat to fit in the dress. Screw it, I'll toss the apron away and run naked and happy instead...

maybe I'll marry after my children are grown, maybe then....

A woman after my own heart!

A prenup is very unromantic, but might be a wise thing to do if you're rich.

Cerebus said:

CarrieMpls said:

It can be argued, sure, but generally the idea is that if one person's bringing in an income the other person is bringing other things to the relationship and you've agreed that that's how it's going to work. The person not bringing in an income has forgone working due to this arrangment and deserves equitable distribution.

I understand how folks can argue about this but when you're married you are supposed to get "half" for a reason. It was designed as a protection measure so women who devote their lives to maintaining home and children aren't left with nothing and no way to support themselves when their husband decides that he wants a 21 year old girlfriend instad of a 40-something wife and she's given up all chance of a career because that's what they agreed upon when they got married.

You go to court to prove someone doesn't "deserve" half, like you said. And there are most certainly cases of that.

......... never mind.... I just started in on a couple thousand word essay. Highlight, backspace. I'm just gonna walk away instead. Most people wouldn't have read it and most of those who did would have misunderstood it or angrily disagreed. Why bother? The short version is that I find a lot of what you wrote right there to be insulting, presumptive and contradictory in regards to everything "feminism" is supposed to stand for.

Edit: Highlight, not Highligh. I hate spelling errors even more when I've had no sleep.

[Edited 2/4/11 12:10pm]

Keep in mind, I said "designed as". As in that's what our divorce laws are based on. Up until 30-40 years ago it was uncommon for women to work outside the home and a few decades before that it was difficult for women to even get work, let alone earn a livable wage.

I get that that's not the case for most modern relationships. But the rules were set up to protect the non-wage earner in the relationship so it goes to follow for both sexes. If a man stays home and works while his wife is the breadwinner, he's just as entitled to half when she leaves him for the gardener.

Why do so many people have a problem with them?

I'm pretty sure they do not automatically say "fuck you, you get NOTHING if this doesn't work out" to one party by the other.

They can be as simple and practical as, "this is what we both came with when we entered this marriage, let's protect that...and this is what we will do if it doesn't work out" and both parties agree.

I think it would be a little silly to enter a partnership without having a plan if it doesn't work out. No one would enter a business partnership without a plan. I mean, people go into business with best intentions and the idea that it will last forever....not sure why a marriage would be any different.