Posted on 03/16/2005 3:28:28 AM PST by MississippiMasterpiece
The divorce rate is approaching 50%, with most divorces initiated by women. The overwhelming majority of these men trusted the girl when they married her. Several of them were friends of mine who got raped in the divorce.
No matter how much you trust a person NOW, and no matter how trustworthy a person is this week, people change. There is no guarantee that the woman you love and trust this week will not turn into a 14-ct b***h in 10 years
And yes, I'm married. Have been for 20 years. I guess I'm just a bit luckier than my friends (so far)
Heck, these men aren’t getting good advice. They should be advised to setup offshore foundations. In those foundations they can place their house, cars, bank accounts, clothes, etc., and nobody will be able to touch it or claim it but the individual. In these offshore foundations, the person can leave a last will and testament and/or instructions dictating to whom and how his possessions should be distributed should he become incapacitated (mentally) or die. Also, their names do not appear in any public document; therefore, nothing can be traced to the “owner.”
And I bet that if your future husband knew you wanted to be able to screw him royally in the event of a divorce, he'd be livid too.
Good answer!
Hardly, but it is a potent deterrent to marriage.
The solution: lacking adultery or abuse, or any other serious deformity in the marriage, the suing spouse gets nothing: no kids, no money, no assets. Someone wants out of marriage for personal convenience, go out on his/her own. In other words, do away with no-fault divorce.
The only thing about giving money is that depending on the person receiving it, it can sometimes do more harm than good and can radically alter the lives of those who aren't good at handling it. Sometimes money does more harm than good. Consider that banks will give great loans to people who don't need them or the lottery winners who would have been better off not winning the money.
“Let’s face it,” added Haus, “The man is the one who almost always get screwed over when a divorce occurs. Even though he usually made more money than the woman in the marriage, he loses the house, and ends up paying child support since the woman will get custody of their offspring. This new trend just provides him with a little insurance so he can enjoy a decent standard of living.”
Yes, the woman makes out like a bandit. Typically in her mid-thirties with a couple of kids -- now there's the kind of hot prospect guys are looking to date/marry.
Not when it isn't a pain equally for both parties.
As it stands now, it is a detterent for men to marry.
Make it so that men and women have an equal chance for custody, an equal chance of having to buy the other person a house, and an equal chance of having everything you worked for looted by the angry other person and I'd love to see how women as a group react.
If my wife to be was the wealthiest woman on the planet and asked me for a pre-nup? I'd certainly agree to do it so that she would know that I was marrying her because I loved her and NOT because I loved her money.
The amount should be reasonable. It doesn't take more money to raise a rich child than it does a poor child.
If the court says a man should pay $600 per month in child support, then they're saying it takes $1200 per month to raise a child.
Good idea though, if you file you better have good reason.
Well, okay then. It's your life, and your assets. I still like my plan better.
As a woman, I'd be insisting on a pre-nup of some kind to show my faithful intentions.
Me, too. But the best thing about having insurance is never having to use it. To me, you marry a woman because you love her and don't want to live life without her. If you think about it, pre-nups are a way of saying that the marriage is not about the money.
The problem is that women know the system is rigged going into it. The worst part is that many women make just as much as guys yet still want to play the oh woe is me game, much to their own success in the face of idiot judges.
I agree 100%. Pre-nup is defintely the way to go in this day and age.
I'm picturing the divorced person suing his trusted stake holder, after the divorce and trying to explain to the judge why he gave the stake holder all this money to hide from the spouse.
Personally, in our situation, it's just easier all around to stay married!
Ann
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.