Putting Off The Married Life - Page 2

+1

+2

+3

If you want a serious answer, here it is in an nutshell: this is just another Internet Master of the Universe circle jerk. You are making Vox seem subtle and humble at the same time, which takes some doing.

I meant a serious answer to the question of marriage and prenuptial agreements, not another mini-commentary on my e-persona.

I'll ask once more, although I'm not optimistic about getting a serious response out of you or edmorel. What is so laughable about a pre-nuptial agreement?

One serious question to you before I give you a serious answer, how old are you and what is your current vocation?

Just shy of 25 and management consultant.

In most states they are simply not necessary. Pre-wedding assets are not community property, and everything made in marriage is split. They are notoriously hard to enforce. Just set up a living trust with all of your assets going in. That is the easiest, and most efficient, way to do it, in my legal-know-nothing opinion.

That's a good point. I guess what I find to be unfair is the idea that if I use a lot of my money to buy a house shortly after marriage, that in the case of a messy divorce I could lose the house despite it coming primarily for my earnings (much of which were pre-marriage). I don't claim to know these laws like the back of my hand, but it just seems like an awfully scary scenario that could unfold. I understand that if a woman mothers your children and provides more non-monetary qualities to the marriage, she should not be penalized and left with nothing upon divorce. That would not be fair. I just worry about me being left with much less than I should be. Perhaps it is an irrational fear.

Nothing says love like a pre-nup.

Serious answer: Unless you have large assets going into the marriage, there is no point. Love/marriage is not an analytical excercise, eventually you will come to realize that. The chance of finding a girl that will not tell you to go fuck yourself when you bring up the prenup are quite slim.


Joke answer: Go gay, you won't have to worry about leaving your assets to the guy you are reaming/is reaming you, at least not in most states.

those are the basics.. When the woman in question is pissed off the game changes, let me explain with a real example..

Lets say the couple was married for 10 years, whereas in those years the man was the only earner and there were no permarital assets to speak of. If they lived the good life, an income of 200.000 plus could easily be spend, so the only buildup of assets happens in a pension fund and their house. During the divorce she could ask for half the assets right? Wrong, she gets half of their "presumed" assets, given a savings rate of 20% he would have to pay up 200.000 and half of the worth of their house not even taking the pension fund into the equation.

The problem lies in that the law often takes the stand that the husband is not of good will and as such takes the wife in protection, if the ex wife has a different agenda this protection becomes a powerfull weapon in the fight for assets.. Allthough im talking about dutch divorce law, not sure if the situation is the same in the states..

Thanks for replying seriously. I want to point out that I don't see marriage as an analytical exercise - I would never marry for wealth. I realize that already. It's just that I've seen marriages which were never entered with finances or analytics in mind end badly and messily. I was actually half-joking about getting a pre-nup to get some responses out of people, but there is an underlying fear I have that if things go wrong in marriage, not only will I be in a bad place mentally/emotionally, but also possibly getting reamed financially (see nootje's post above). I'd agree that it would be hard to get a woman to sign a pre-nup, which is unfortunate. On a related note though, what do you see as the benefits of marriage, outside of any kind of financial benefit (taxes)? I'm talking a legal marriage, not perpetual cohabitation and having children.

This is an analytical exercise dunce.



Dood, I met someone, I fell in love, we had sex, I married them , we had fights, we had sex, we had kids, we bought a house, we had sex, we have two cars, we work, we go out, we have sex, we go on vacations, we are planning for the future, we are raising our kids. I have yet to spend one minute thinking about what the benefits of being married have been. It is something that should just happen, it's not comparing a condo rental to a house purchase. You are either too young, phucked in the head about relationships, or have not met the "right" person yet. And yes, the right person could turn out to be the very wrong person later on. It's called life, you have to be in it to win it.

I don't understand your point. You make a very good point about long committed relationships and how normal people don't enter in them with analytics in mind. But nothing in what you say explains why choosing one legal form for that relationship (marriage) over the other legal forms is supposed to be "obvious".