Women Against Prenups

[StandUpGuyParticipant 334]

A quote from Tower on another thread: “Marriage is for gays, lesbians, transvestites, and women. For heterosexual men it has become the unholy institution of death to destroy a his spirit, rendering him a sacrifice to the alter of feminism… I don’t do “that” religion… MGTOW, not a religion, it’s only a way….”

[BeerParticipant 11832]

I was talking to an older gentlemen about marriage recently.  I had told him I’d probably never get married as I had too much to lose.  He went on to tell me how he’s been married over 40 years, and he never looked at marriage from that perspective as he viewed all his assets as marital assets.  I asked him how old he was when he got married, and what he had for assets at the time.  His response was that he was married at 20 and he neither him or the wife had any assets.

I then proceeded to tell him I’m 31, my education is paid for, I have a six figure net worth and a six figure income, most women around my age come with debt, and make a lot less, and explained how even a marriage that only lasts a few years and that has no children involved could still cost me 100,000+ dollars.  His reply was to get a pre-nup.

Great advice gramps…I should pay to go get a pre-nup drafted, and pay for a ring/wedding, when the only benefit I would get from it would be the opportunity to maybe find out first hand what divorce is like, in which case that pre-nup I paid for might get over turned, and I’d have to pay for the divorce itself regardless, and even if my pre-marital assets were safe it would still cost me a chunk of assets I earned during the course of the marriage.  You know what is a lot better than that?  Simply never marrying.  I don’t think that guy has a clue how slutty women have become, and that the social stigmas for cohabitating and having kids outside of marriage are non existent in today’s society.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Can anyone explain this one to me?

2. They lack consideration. Contracts are binding when each person to the contract gives something and gets something. Think of it. You pay a store for a pair of shoes. You get the shoes. This is called “consideration,” which is the basis of contract law. In a prenuptial agreement, the consideration is often lacking. The less-moneyed spouse generally gives away most of her marital rights as provided by law to the moneyed spouse. The right to marry the other (although stated as “consideration” in the prenup) is mutual. They are both marrying – so that part of it is equal. The less-moneyed spouse is giving away more. Where is the consideration on the other side to balance this? This severe imbalance is present in almost all prenups. In addition, prenups are often “sprung” on the less-moneyed spouse, if not after the engagement has been set, often after the invitations are sent.

They are both marrying….so that part of it is equal.  In theory…they both get an equal amount of love, support, and companionship, right?  But…the less moneyed spouse is giving away more?  From every social aspect…they are both making equal gain…but from a financial aspect…how is the less moneyed spouse giving more away when in the event of a divorce with no prenup its the less moneyed/lower earning spouse who is walking away with more than they would have had the marriage never happened?  This one isn’t even a matter of male vs female…its simply a matter of the writer being an idiot.

[Author]

Posts