Turn on thread page Beta

Girls: Prenuptial agreement for marriage? watch

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Absinth)
    Someone in this thread raised a point about a woman being in a more financially vulnerable position by putting her career on hold to have a child if her husband divorced her after that.

    But in situations like that, a prenup would still be beneficial if exceptions can be made, to cater for the examples such as the one above.
    But it is generally only in situations like that where the women actually get a big divorce payout. You don't get loads of money just for being single. The system is not generally unfair, so why would you want to bypass it?

    (Original post by http://www.advicenow.org.uk)
    Family law gives men and women equal rights. If you believe some of the things that you read, you might think that family law favoured women over men, or vice versa. But the law as it is written is not biased. For example, either member of the couple can be ordered to pay maintenance to their partner if their partner has been dependent on them for money. In practice, more men are likely to pay maintenance than women, but this is because men typically earn more than women. In a case where a father has stayed at home to look after the children and the wife is the breadwinner, she might well be ordered to pay him maintenance.

    The same neutrality applies to the law about children. The laws about what happens to children after divorce have no bias for one parent or the other. The court has to treat the welfare of each child as the most important factor. In practice more children are likely to live with their mothers after divorce than their fathers, because in many families the father has been the major earner, and the mother has spent more time with the children. But this is not something that is laid down in the law.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    yes. but the two are independent of each other.

    if for both of you this statement holds (love each otehr....) then the prenup will never matter anyway.

    but if one of you breaks it...
    Mhmm. I'm just saying, if there's the slightest doubt that you'll break one of these, you shouldn't be getting married. People have sucessful relationships without being married, and have done for centuries.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    this is exactly my problem.

    a prenup is not about CURRENT committment. it is about a hypothetical FUTURE event. and in the event of a divorce that commitment you had when marrying no longer exists.
    But it is about current commitment. By covering for this event, you are completely stripping the current commitment so it no longer exists.

    The only thing that distinguishes a marriage from any other relationship is the fact that you are committing yourself and your worldly possessions to the person you are marrying as an act of faith in your relationship. A prenup removes this commitment and marriage is then nothing but a meaningless document.

    You are literally making the commitment and then immediately removing it again. The marriage may remain, but the fact that the prenup is there means that there IS no commitment.

    It's like placing a bet with the clause that if you lose, the bet is off. It's just nothing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I think my sympathy just evaporated. I can obviously bloody read. And type. If you're gonna try insults at least be intelligent/witty/funny/remotely true?
    That one just particularly grates because it is used so often :rolleyes:

    I seem to recall you saying:

    Gold-digging was "only reason" why anyone might have a problem with prenuptial agreements.

    Or alternatively because it removes women having "all the power in the marriage"

    "A lot of girls are after the money"

    You accused someone who was arguing with you of having a "feminist agenda"


    I'm not saying you're sexist. Because in fairness your posts seem pretty balanced and you're not judging "all women", and you're emphasising that it goes both ways etc.

    It's just your arguments do seem to rely upon a lot of stereotypes. You say it's silly for any man not to want a prenuptial agreement on the basis that a lot of women are after the money.

    That only works as an argument if the woman in question fits that stereotype. Without the sterotype, what you're saying kinda falls apart.

    I'm not like that at all. So why the insistance that my feelings against pre-nuptials are foolish? You can't use the gold-digger argument against someone who isn't a gold digger.. simply on the basis that they are female I might add. That's stereotyping and I don't like being put in a box for you to make fun of.

    You're right to argue about something without being called sexist. My right to argue about something without being called a feminist or a gold digger or some other box so frequently used to dismiss anything a woman says in defence of her own gender.
    I love you.

    ...but the stereotyping was sexist.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Your criticisms of the analogy are rubbish because they show that you totally missed the point of the analogy, and your reluctance to allow your male partner financial security in the event of a divorce speaks volumes about you. You obviously can't understand that it's not about you, it's about him. Just like when I belt up in people's cars I'm not dissing their driving.

    One also has to wonder why you are (mis)using the anonymous feature as well.
    Personally, when I belt up I only do so because it's the law...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    But it is about current commitment. By covering for this event, you are completely stripping the current commitment so it no longer exists.

    The only thing that distinguishes a marriage from any other relationship is the fact that you are committing yourself and your worldly possessions to the person you are marrying as an act of faith in your relationship. A prenup removes this commitment and marriage is then nothing but a meaningless document.

    You are literally making the commitment and then immediately removing it again. The marriage may remain, but the fact that the prenup is there means that there IS no commitment.

    It's like placing a bet with the clause that if you lose, the bet is off. It's just nothing.
    ok. i give up because people seem to have some sort of ideal way about thinking of love and committment and what a marriage is supposed to be.

    the one thing i am gonna say is:

    no pre nup. you love her you wanna marry her have kids, grow old, die.

    then you get divorced and shes about to take most of the money. dont you wish you had a prenup? if you could go back in time would you not do so? why not do exactly this by having one in the first place.

    ps your bet analogy is nice, but it doesnt apply. if it were equivalent, then your saying marriage is like a bet. which im sure we both agree it isnt.
    • #2
    #2

    (Original post by Playboy King)
    If you were to be getting married with a guy but he asked you to agree to a prenuptial agreement (which is like an official contract) that states you're not entitled to any of his wealth, property, assets etc. in the event of a divorce...would you accept?

    So if a divorce does happen, you will get absolutely nothing that isn't yours (if property mortgages are in both of your names and you've each contributed to it then that's divided) but otherwise what's his remains his and what's your remains yours.

    Also, question for the guys...would you consider a prenuptial agreement to protect your money or are you okay with them ripping off your balls through your wallet with a divorce?

    EDIT: could be other way around with women having more wealth, I'm just going with the general trend though and it's usually the woman getting the money rather than giving it in most cases.
    Yes as long as he signs one too, I don't see why not. At the end of the day its just a form of security should things not work out, not that you are expecting the marriage to finish (in which case why the hell would you get married?!). But yeah I'd sign one, if he earnt/inherited his assets, I wouldn't want half anyway.
    • #2
    #2

    To be honest if we are going to get divorced I wouldnt want anything of his anyway, so would definitely sign a pre-nup and get him to sign one too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I would never sign a pre-nup, purely because, I would want his money.
    Sorry.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    then you get divorced and shes about to take most of the money. dont you wish you had a prenup? if you could go back in time would you not do so? why not do exactly this by having one in the first place.
    The appropriate way to avoid this is not to get married. I know where you're coming from and it's a very valid way of thinking but a prenup is not a logical conclusion, since it renders the marriage redundant (as it turns the statement of marriage into "I have faith that our love will last as long as our love lasts", which means literally nothing). This is on the premise that you are, in fact, marrying for love, of course.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    wouldnt be something id want in place no :/ but if asked to sign one i would, as long as he did too, i wouldnt ever want to get divorced but if i did then why have to put up with them through court, say your goodbyes and be gone with your own money and belongings, falling out of love with someone doesnt entitle you to their money :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    The appropriate way to avoid this is not to get married. I know where you're coming from and it's a very valid way of thinking but a prenup is not a logical conclusion, since it renders the marriage redundant (as it turns the statement of marriage into "I have faith that our love will last as long as our love lasts", which means literally nothing). This is on the premise that you are, in fact, marrying for love, of course.
    (Original post by AdviceSeeker09)
    I would never sign a pre-nup, purely because, I would want his money.
    Sorry.
    above is what i mean (at adivce seeker - who could blame you!)

    at planto i dont think i can convince you so ill stop. i think we just have a different idea of what a marriage is.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    I'd happily sign it, but I'd laugh my arse off since he's currently a skint student and I'm the one who is employed. :p: In all seriousness though, marriage is legally binding and that includes your finances, so I think its reasonable as long as both parties are happy to sign.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    above is what i mean (at adivce seeker - who could blame you!)

    at planto i dont think i can convince you so ill stop. i think we just have a different idea of what a marriage is.
    I jest, I would marry for love! However, why not have the money too? Marriage is about sharing yourself, and everything you have, with that person. Granted you wouldn't want to share yourself with that person if getting divorced, however you might aswell take what you can from making that unhappy time before the divorce, worthwhile! :yes:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone in this thread = fail - because prenups are not binding.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blinkbelle)
    Everyone in this thread = fail - because prenups are not binding.
    They might not be at the moment but I'm sure they soon will be. They're already starting to pay more attention to them and once they start relying on them more and more cases will do the same (it'll set a precedent I think).

    The agreements are enforceable in Scotland but not in England and Wales, although courts are paying more attention to them in their rulings.

    The Law Commission is to consult on their use in England and Wales.

    The Tories say they should become binding - but critics say people may feel pressured into signing them.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8276018.stm

    So not really fail because I expect by the time most people in this thread get around to marrying they will be binding
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cortez)
    They might not be at the moment but I'm sure they soon will be. They're already starting to pay more attention to them and once they start relying on them more and more cases will do the same (it'll set a precedent I think).


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8276018.stm

    So not really fail because I expect by the time most people in this thread get around to marrying they will be binding
    Do you have a more authoritative legal source? I studied prenups in detail last year during my Family Law course and at no point did my lecturer/academics/cases indicate this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blinkbelle)
    Do you have a more authoritative legal source? I studied prenups in detail last year during my Family Law course and at no point did my lecturer/academics/cases indicate this.
    Maybe that was before Radmacher v Granatino (was in 2009, not sure when exactly)?

    The wife appealed and the Court of Appeal took more notice of the pre-nup than in the original case and significantly reduced the amount awarded to the ex-husband. One of the judges in that case said "it was becoming “increasingly unrealistic” for courts to disregard pre-nups".
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    aha.if i am getting married to get a divorce-then why get married
    jab bazar se doodh mil jata hai tou ghar mein bhens bandney ki kia zarorat hai
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by greenforce)
    aha.if i am getting married to get a divorce-then why get married
    jab bazar se doodh mil jata hai tou ghar mein bhens bandney ki kia zarorat hai
    You don't marry to get a divorce. Divorces are unexpected.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 22, 2010
The home of Results and Clearing

2,960

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.