Man: "If you want to become my wife, then you will have to sign a pre-nuptial agreement first."

Woman: "That would prevent me from getting whatever you have now should we get a divorce."

Man: "Exactly."

Woman: "I'm not doing it."

Man: "Ah ha! I knew it! You want to marry me for my wealth. Good-bye."

I thought the man is supposed to go down on one knee and propose, and then the woman would do some slight hesitation before saying yes. I guess people dont do that again. .lol

Man: Whats mine is still mine but I want you to be my wife anyway, have and rear children, take care of home, and work if there isnt enough money,,,,

Woman: I love ya, but you arent the one for me,,,,

I prefer the woman on her knees.

As if the man wouldn't somehow be able to make a living after getting married.

If the spouses love each other and want to stay married, then a pre-nuptial agreement wouldn't prevent the man from using pre-marriage assets to support his family.

Yes. It goes both ways. Sometimes it is the woman who is not treated
fairly and sometimes it is the man. Unless it is a gay marriage then
it is always the woman or always the man. But I digress.

I think women benefits more out of a divorce though. Check out the ex spouses of Tiger Woods, Arnold Swaz--, and countless other men. She makes millions of dollars without sweating it out..

Actually, after a divorce, the standard of living for most women goes down. Even the women you mention would have a higher standard of living if they hadn't left their men.

But hey, it's the 21 century. Women don't need rescuing.

I know, everything is both ways. I dont see why any marraige if both parties just walk out with what they came in with and share whatever they have made while they are together, that would make it easy.

When you are in your youth you have little in the way of wealth, unless you have received an inheritance, and start married life with someone in similar circumstances. It is if you find yourself marrying later in life, maybe a second marriage, after you have been working for a long time and have accumalated the fruits of your labours when it would be prudent, in my opinion, to think about a prenuptial agreement, particularly if your future spouse is not bringing the same as you to the table.

I find it interesting that an older woman's value suddenly comes down to her monetary assets when it comes to a divorce but it is frequently about other more intrinsic assets when it comes to the marriage. The only place this value takes another turn around is when the husband becomes infirm and needs a nurse

Or of course when the wife becomes infirm and needs a nurse.



Everyone gets sick and everyone dies. Everyone needs help eventually
and sex has nothing to do with it really.

why??


cause i am not losing all my $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


thats why

ahh, thats the rub

sharing what they made 'together'

some things, we have going in and we help each other maintain or grow during,,,,,those things would be hard to classify one way or the other

Rarely are any pre-nups all-or-nothing.

A lot of the agreements do give from the wealthier to the poorer in case of divorce, except not as much as a divorce court would decide.

So prenups... are for the rich and poor, to make an agreement, not a slavery or a winfall. But something in between... a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.

Like a secretary who makes $30K could marry his boss, who is rich beyond imagination, stipulating in the pre-nup that in case of divorce he gets not half of her money, but say, $20,000 a year, or something to the effect.

The possibilities are actually limitless, for all intents and puroposes.

Most divorces could avoid hefty lawyer's fees if a prenup had been arranged. This is another clincher. Both parties can lose their shirt and pants by hiring divorce lawyers. The lawyers eat up a lot of money, because the lawyers themselves are married to lawyers, most likely, and they need a lot of money for the eventually that they, the divorce lawyers themselves, should get divorced.

I was careful not to specify either a man or woman in my post reply. I was suggesting both man or woman should consider a prenuptial agreement if they have gained assets from many years work. What I was trying to say was, that when you are young you have little in the way of assets to protect, but later in life you do, I in no way meant to infer that an older persons worth, man or woman, comes down to their monetary assets, my apologies. I do believe that if you are to enter in to marriage you should protect what you have worked hard for, your own home for example, and if your your future spouse has nothing, all the more reason to consider a prenuptial agreement to protect yourself. If only to keep a roof over your head should the marriage fail.If you are both marrying for the right reasons it should be of no consequence in the long term, but none of us can see in to the future, and I am for one already a divorcee unfortunately we do make mistakes.

Marriage has become a social, government, and tax institution that only deals with societies interest. It should be a religious institution separated from the state. That being said, there are a few considerations here:
1-women's liberation has all but abolished alimony, so the only recourse is shared assets or child support.
2-women only have the power of life and death over a baby, so why is a man held financially responsible?

A pre-Nup is acceptable with the codicil of how the mutual assets are divided. Plan for the demise before the relationship begins and it just might last longer.

The only fair way to adjudicate a divorce is to sell ALL the mutual assets and split the money in half. When children are involved there should be a "state minimum" of support, no frills or income consideration, each party pays half of that minimum and are on their own to make a "home" for their children separately.

The sad thing in all of this, is when two parents divorce each other, it isn't considered what their children feel about it. Just the two parents obssessing over who gets what. Completely missing the fact that their children will always remember what you just said to each other. It isn't a good example to set for future generations. I just think it's silly how some will argue in the street infront of everyone. Embarrasing and stupid. All for the sake of money.

Greed!
The only true victims in a divorce are the children, and it's a shame that differences of opinions in raising ans rearing them often is the cause for the divorce. Big Catch 22