No, I'm not going to sign a prenup.

Unless he's under extraordinary circumstances (or I am for the matter), like a millionaire, multiple divorces, I'm not going to.

My goal isn't to get a divorce. And if we do get one, I hope it will be on neutral terms.

I can forgive a man cheating if there's children involved. But only once. After that, it's hell.

You and Neo. Except you are protected. A prenup doesn't mean you want to get divorced. Like i said. It's insurance. I have health insurance. I never say "I hope I get to use it", it's there for my safety.


Funny, your second option. There isn't an option for men to take their wives to the cleaners... that have cheating wives to be specific. Go figure.

_________________
In a funk? Read this

pua-lounge/the-importance-patience-this ... his%20game

No I said it was despicable. Lol, what you're doing is like when feminists throw out shit like "getting raped is very LIKELY....5% of women get raped", and if someone says that means there's a small chance of it, they say "YOU'RE CONDOING RAPE! You dont care about the victim!" No thats not it. See thats why I dont put much stock into feminists or mens rights guys, because both claim certain things are highly likely at very low percentages, and when you say thats a low %, they say you dont care. Thats silly. No, you can say "yeah its a low % and maybe I shouldnt have claimed it was very likely..." and still made the point. No need to make an emotional argument that I must not care because I pointed out your given % was low.

Again, I hope that someone reading this can see how feminist and mens rights arguments are the exact same. I never said or implied none of that, and my argument HAS NEVER BEEN DONT CRITICIZE WOMEN. I have to bold that because I wish you had kept it honest. NOWHERE have I said anything to imply you were bitter or anything of misogony. I didnt even question your numbers or sources. As the feminists do, you're using extreme language to make a discussion work.
Never thought you did. Nor implied that. I'm speaking on the statistics concept of conditional probability and you take it to mean, because I'm being honest and using Math, that I dont care or labelling you as bitter.
So I'm pointing out the truth with your numbers. Not saying they were made up, but as if they were true. Let's say I have a 50% chance of meeting you Mr.A. Now, you're 70% likely to punch me in my face if I meet you. That does not mean that I have a 70% chance of getting punched by Mr.A. That means I have a 35% chance, because the first condition (us meeting) has to happen, and then the 70% chance of you punching comes into play. So the odds are 65% vs 35% that MR.A will not punch me. Thats not the same as 30% chance you will. Now thats just how probability works, has nothing to do with misogyny. You cant say MR.A is surely going to punch you because odds are in my favor we will not even meet, and then I still have the prob of him not punching me. I'm not arguing your sources, I'm not arguing the research in your sources. I'm applying your numbers correctly to the concept of probability. On a math exam, I couldnt answer that with your %s a man's odds arent in his favor. No idea why using math correctly makes me a misogynist labeller. But hey, when I asked HT a question a while back, I was a "woman hater" and now when I use math I'm a "misogynist labeller." I'm be damned if men and women are that much different when both go to emotional arguments automatically.
Just a note, dont go that route again with these issues. Someone doing the math with your numbers has nothing to do with saying you're bitter.


Now you can be honest and say that ok, its not likely that these scenarios will play out. But you still want insurance. Even if its less than 5% you will pay for another man's child, you can still get insurance. Or you can say even though these cases of father's paying for another man's kid is a very small minority of all cases, I dont want that so I'm against marriage. My thing was dont say it like the odds are with you. There's a difference between saying theres a 5% chance of rain, but I'll still take my umbrella...vs saying there's a 5% chance of rain, ODDS are its going to rain.

I'm just asking for the conversation to be sensible, without these emotional points make the cases. These child support/alimony and marriage arguments are so one dimensional. For eg, you say that its crazy if a man has to pay for a bastard. You cant fathom why the court does this.
What's forgotten is there is a CHILD. So many times, I see these child support arguments forget that. Now, its fair that if you paid for something that wasnt yours, you should be reimbursed. 100%. But are the courts going to tell a mom, ok, you owe this man $200k for the past 10 years youve lied to him and while she has custody of the kid she has to make monthly payments to him, while the kid is disadvantaged because mom is paying back $200k? See, its not fair, but you can see how the courts are in an extremely tough position and CANT be fair.

Child support is a complex issue, and issues like that dad paying for another man's child arent as simple as men vs women. I'll ask you, what is the court to do? Should the court order the mom to reimburse the dad while she takes care of this kid? Thats fair, but what abt the kid? The system is not perfect, far from it, but there are EXTREMELY DIFFICULT decisions here. Thats not me agreeing with system, its me realizing the difficulty with these situations and ensuring the kid is taken care of despite his mom's whoredom. There's a living breathing child in the middle of all this, and what is the court to do...reduce the income that comes to him because he's a bastard? If I had to pay, I'd be pissed, it would be unfair....but the court is putting the kids interest above my own. Its fucked up I may go to jail for not paying for a kid thats not mine, but what is the court supposed to do?

Tell me, what is the solution in cases like this? Because I see the stats and stories but never see anything on what the court should do, AND how it would impact the child. Thats not a challenge, a genuine question, because I'm stomped. Child support is a corrupt system, but what is the court to do? Its easy to say reimburse the dad, when the kid is impacted and thats never mentioned. Or just let the husband off the hook, no future payments? Well the kid now is less well off. The courts with all the corruption, do have a difficult job of giving laws for a wide variety of situations and interpreting them and weighing whats best for the kid, vs whats fair. When people turn these tough decisions into a "woman" thing, its a disservice to pretend that its that simple. Do the courts not reimburse the husband because they love women, or could at least part be that there is a child here and fuck everyone else? Can someone give a better way, because its easy to act like its a man vs woman thing and forget the WHOLE PICTURE.

Ofcourse I'd sign a prenup.

I haven't read the thread but I'd love for someone to give me just one argument for which virtually saying "If shit goes bad, here's half my stuff" makes any sense, in any scenario, for either party, ever.

_________________
I know my place. It's me on top of the world.

My in depth texting & dating guide.
There's no such thing as shit-tests.
How to keep a girl.

Thats not the scenario. Its not if we you divorced you give half your stuff. There are marital and non marital assets.

Typical scenario: you make a bit more than your wife. You make $100k, she makes $75k. You buy a house together. Since you make more income, you pay 60% of the mortgage. Divorce happens. She gets 50% of something she should only get 40% of. This is not equal, but its not "half of your stuff."

If a woman gets 50% of your stuff without any investment in the property, you married a woman who makes much much much less than you.

My opinion is, IF I get married, I view it as a life long thing. I'm not marrying someone that cant invest close to the same as me in things in the first place. And if I do, I'm the one who made that choice to pay more for the rest of my life. So Ive never considered a prenup. My thing is, if you marry someone who cant contribute close to your level, youre sying I am paying for this woman's livelihood for the rest of my life. Divorce or not.

Thats just me. Never considered one cause marriage means to me they can pay their share, so in a divorce, I'll be ok.

Thanks for clearing it up.
I understand how that can be a really bad thing in the scenario you explained above, but if for example you are a business owner, you can still make much more than your wife while she still has a great job herself.
It's doesn't necessarily boil down to guy with great career and stay at home wife scenario.

I see where you're coming from. And sure, marriage is a life long thing. But I think it's a bit naive to stake that on someone else. We both know the only person who's actions you can control is your own self.

In the end I think it's fair game that everyone gets what they contributed for.
That's fair I guess. My only real problem with marriage is the utopian nature of it. I hate the idea of unconditional permanency. If I personally marry someone, who can or cannot contribute close to my level, I'm not saying I'm paying her livelihood for the rest of my life. I'm saying I'm paying her livelihood for as long as she's deserving of it.

I understand that since you giving her the wife title she absolutely must be deserving of it. However I just don't think that applies to 10 years from now. Like I said, the idea of unconditional permanency seems childish to me.

_________________
I know my place. It's me on top of the world.

My in depth texting & dating guide.
There's no such thing as shit-tests.
How to keep a girl.

100% agree. Thats why I think its contradictory that you enter an unconditional permanency situation with a contingency.Thats why if I were to do it, ie enter unconditional permenency, I'd have to face the fact that this situation, good or bad, is going to affect me for the rest of my life. If its day by day, then I wont get married. Its hope and faith, not to sign a prenup; but marriage is hope and faith itself. Why else would u enter a lifelong commitment when nothing else in life is supposed to last for the rest of your life?
True. If i were to get married, id do so to someone on the same page as me. They'd have to realize, this is unconditional permanency. This means even if you aren't in love w me 5 years from now, we work on it. Even if this fails 10 years from now, you and I arent the type of people who would try to screw the other over. We both believe in fairness. And we're both mature and grounded enough not to change drastically in a few years. I know in 10 years I wont turn into a rapist, cause I dont believe or condone rape. That wouldnt change in 30 years. Same way she has to be mature and principled enough to know she wont try to hurt me for any reason, especially when we both tried our best and it didnt work. You marry a young chick who barely knows who she is, or who doesnt have the firm principles of fairness , or who's telling you she slashed her ex's tires for cheating, well thats a recipe for getting raped in court if divorce comes. To your pt on large income gaps, but she still makes good money...for me, I'd only marry if the chick beleives strongly in fairness. So even if I make 5 times as much, she's gotta be the type of woman who FEELS BAD for that. She herself is the type who if I want to go 5 star restaurants cause I can afford for it, she says no...we go decent restaurants so I can split the bill. She wont let me get the house for us that is above her income level, she tells me save the money, lets get a cheaper house, I'll contribute half. If she's fighting for fairness during the marriage, I can be sure she wont fight for unfairness after the marriage. If a woman is showing you she is ok with things being unequal during the marriage, well yeah she's gonna be ok with you paying more during the divorce. Thats just how I see it if I marry someone who makes and is able to contribute significantly less. Her lifestyle shouldnt go up. Nor should she want it to.

It's all lovely and romantic until money comes into play.

Guys on here talking about how dare I place money and career as top priorities? What if he or she had other great things to offer? Well, with the way these arguments are being thrown around, seems like money is the ultimate determinate.

What if you had 5 great years of her cooking, cleaning and great sex and 2 rotten years? You going to take that into consideration when court time comes? Of course not. No matter how much a person does for you that doesn't require money, when divorce time comes around, it almost always lands back to the damn money.

Whoever holds the gold makes the rule.


Well, there you go. Arguments like these. Brought up by men.

What if the man owned a home before the two of you met. If the marriage didn't work out, do you think she should be entitled to half the value of the home? If he started a business while married to you and although you aren't involved with any aspects of the business, do you think you are entitled to half of the business? Or even if it was the other way around and you owned the home or started the business, would you be okay with him getting half of those things? How about a hobby that involves collecting rare things, do you believe the spouse is entitled to half of the collectibles even though they aren't interested in the hobby at all?

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com

Please show me any hint of romance in divorce court. It's all about the money in the end.


Neo. You asked me why I WAS BIASED. Biased about what ? Equality for men ? Asking you to take a look at the raw deal men get when they get married ? You started to talk about me being biased which is why I said the unspoken amendment.

Tell women to get paternity tests before they get married would be GREAT. So both couples know their children was theirs. If it isn't the husbands child, at LEAST the man will know that the kid isn't his and he can make a LOGICAL decision rather than finding out down the road it wasn't his and the courts tell him he is shit out of luck. ANY CHILD BORN OUT OF INFIDELITY IS ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MOTHER AND THE MAN SHE GETS IMPREGNATED BY during marriage would be awesome.

Men only have one form of birth control and that is the least effective one(condoms) were as women have at least 32 forms of birth control. Also women have 100% of the say in whether they stay pregnant or not. So as long as they have 100% of the say then they should have 100% of the responsibility. As it stands there is no legal way to force a woman to be a parent. She can use birth control, take the day after pill, have an abortion, put the child up for adoption and even drop the baby off at any hospital or fire station " no questions asked" so if that's the case then yes women should take 100% of the responsibilities. Because I guarantee you if women did have to take 100% of the responsibility then there would be one hell of a lot less unwanted pregnancies!!

IF even these ideas are too radical for todays society, at least there should be a way for the person paying child support to actually SEE that the money is being used for the CHILD.

I've been telling you that was your argument since the first page. EMOTIONAL HOPE.
Lol.....so when my 19 year old cousin marries his young soon to be wife, she is exempt from this thought process ? Wow. Why ? Because he doesn't have money yet ? I already told you he is not going to stay poor forever.

You keep missing the point. THE FACT that it is even possible that a woman can take you to the cleaners in 2016 still when we have all these feminists pushing for all these rights for women, no one takes a look at marriage. Feminist don't say shit about marriage because it's a great deal for women and bad deal for men.

_________________
In a funk? Read this

pua-lounge/the-importance-patience-this ... his%20game

Of course you place money and career as top priorities. Most women over 30 do so. And you're exactly the type of person a wealthy man would need a prenup over. That way you can have his money while you're with him, but you don't get to walk off with it when you leave(and you are very likely to do so).
If you want to say you're entitled to his money while in a relationship with him, cool. But when that relationship is over, so is your right to his money. That's all a prenup is for.

With your income, you're the type of person who should also get a prenup if you were marrying a man who earns substantially less than you. I know you wouldn't, because that guy is beneath you, but it would be wise if you were attracted to a man more than to his estate.
She had access to that wealth the entire time she was in the marriage. When she chooses to leave the marriage, she should be willing to walk away from the money. If she's more into the money, then I guess she should stay. No one ever said being a gold digger was a path to bliss. Nor should it be codified in the law. Prenups shouldn't even be needed. But because of the modern way courts handle divorce, they are necessary.
My chick is different. You guys don't get it. She's special. She's not like other women. She would never do something like that.

_________________
I would chop my dick off and move to the forest. you know, since yesterday my opinion changed. - bartm
A chick can have an ugly to average face but if she's skinny, that's a guaranteed 6. - HT23VWY67

LOL.
Access to his money...is that unlimited, like whenever she wants? Because 90% of the time, she needs his approval and there is a limit.
I have yet to know a woman that has access to a man's credit cards....because I don't.

The women that are given 'access' to their husbands money are using it for groceries, household, utilities, insurance, kids, and so on. Clothes, jewelry and shoes are on a budget that have to be pre-approved and those are reserved for 'special occasions' aka rarely.

Like, 98% of women of this world are NOT married to millionaires, or billionaires. These chicks are on Instagram posting their Loubutins. Their number is scarce and you know it.

So this 'access to his money' is very limited for the average beautifully poor woman married to the above average 300k successful man.

$200k doesn't equate to 'unlimited access'. Sorry there.

Sorry, but I don't consider groceries and utilities as

You conveniently just looked over Jackzeros question to you and you cherry pick what will work in your favor. You already know marriage is a crap deal for men but here you are. Just typing away things unrelated to the topic.

_________________
In a funk? Read this

pua-lounge/the-importance-patience-this ... his%20game

To answer Jack:

If I'm broke as hell, I might be inclined to demand half. It depends. Did he mistreat me? Did he force me to stay at home or work part time in exchange for taking care of the kids full time? If I'm being belittled, cheated on, and so on, yes, I want the half. But if we parted amicably, well, it wouldn't be very fair to him.

If I'm well enough on my own, I probably wouldn't look after his money nor care to get a piece of it.

Most people hate depending on others financially. And even those poor chicks marrying Mr. Big Bucks, trust me, deep down inside they want the financial freedom, an achievement, a degree, a big time career, business, whatever, but something that goes beyond their looks.

So to answer you, I hope I never end up in a position where I'm inclined to 'take his half'. I want to be the prize here.

That's exactly why you should have a prenup. Prenups are written beforehand so there can be cool heads when things don't work out as planned. How you're explaining it, you'd take all of those things just to be petty. Seriously, "I feel belittled judge, so I deserve half" is bullshit. You're a pharmacist, you have a capable career but the fact that you said you wanted half of those things is something that most people should read. You, by law, would be entitled to alimony, but you also want the stuff that you see is clearly not yours.

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com