One person wants a prenup and the other does not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If money matters that much to him, he is just using her til he meets a wealthy woman with assets AND earning potential. Period. I doubt he intends to marry this one at all. And he has a good chance of succeeding, since there is so much wealth here.

OP, if you are truly engaged, how much did he spend on your ring? Someone who cares about that much about money gets their fiancee a min 15k ring, and usually much more. Starters at Tiffany with a half decent setting and diamond run in the high teens and low 20's.

Or are you just living together, an idea I am guessing he did not suggest? Was it your idea? You don't have to tell us, it seems pretty clear. Could be totally off base here, but that is my guess. I bet you moved in with him, and are clinging to this relationship like your life depends on it.

Op, this is his way of starting to break up with you.

Best of luck.

Did someone say something about this place being totally materialistic and obsessed with status? Here is proof for you in that section in bold.

Pathetic how totally screwed up people are about what really matters. Probably the reason whey OP's guy wants a pre-nup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. No businesses owned. He makes more money than I. Any businesses that he creates in the marriage, he wants. No alimony. If I contribute, say 20 percent towards house bills, then in a divorce, that's what I get towards the house.

Don't marry him. Definitely don't have kids with him. If he earns more, you will likely take on most of the responsibility and take the greater career hit when kids come along. In a 50-50 state or otherwise, the division of property in divorce needs to reflect non-monetary contributions as well as monetary contributions.

[Anonymous]

Did someone say something about this place being totally materialistic and obsessed with status? Here is proof for you in that section in bold.



PP here. Actually the reason I brought that up is that it should give her further proof of his love or lack thereof.

1. We all agree his is a selfish conceited jerk obsessed with money due to the terms of his proposed pre-nup. Right?

2. So if they are engaged, a guy like that would buy what kind of ring?

a. A 20K dazzler to show off his status and his hot fiancee
or
b. a fake CZ or "antique" ring costing $600 or less that he can pawn off on her for another few months of good sex until he really kicks her to the curb.

3. If they are not actually engaged, if they are just living together, she is getting the first nudge out the door.

[Anonymous]

I can understand I gradient prenup. What he suggests before children, but after children or say 5 yrs then the gradient favours you, and continues based on children and years if marriage. And if you are married for 20 yrs plus. 50/50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Did someone say something about this place being totally materialistic and obsessed with status? Here is proof for you in that section in bold.



PP here. Actually the reason I brought that up is that it should give her further proof of his love or lack thereof.

1. We all agree his is a selfish conceited jerk obsessed with money due to the terms of his proposed pre-nup. Right?

2. So if they are engaged, a guy like that would buy what kind of ring?

a. A 20K dazzler to show off his status and his hot fiancee
or
b. a fake CZ or "antique" ring costing $600 or less that he can pawn off on her for another few months of good sex until he really kicks her to the curb.

3. If they are not actually engaged, if they are just living together, she is getting the first nudge out the door.

You are so off. Just drop it, you are making yourself look even worse.

[Anonymous]

OP, do you have your answer?

[Anonymous]

Lots of insecure women here looking for a good provider.

Why not try getting out and working so that you are no dependent on some guy's income whether you remain married or not? What ever happened to all the feminism and self-worth when it comes prenups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of insecure women here looking for a good provider.

Why not try getting out and working so that you are no dependent on some guy's income whether you remain married or not? What ever happened to all the feminism and self-worth when it comes prenups?

If you are going to partner up, you partner up, especially when kids are involved. You don't enter what this guy considers a employer/employee relationship. No way. I'm not against prenups in general. I'm against this one.

[Anonymous]

No wonder he wants a pre-nup. Just read these responses. Pathetic talks about marrying "up" etc.

Sure she can leave him, and that might hurt him for a while but he'll find someone to sign that pre-nup. Yes, a lopsided one isn't ideal but you can also leave him and marry a poor guy with other problems you have no idea about.

Make your own money and don't worry about his.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No wonder he wants a pre-nup. Just read these responses. Pathetic talks about marrying "up" etc.

Sure she can leave him, and that might hurt him for a while but he'll find someone to sign that pre-nup. Yes, a lopsided one isn't ideal but you can also leave him and marry a poor guy with other problems you have no idea about.

Make your own money and don't worry about his.

Well, that's just it! When push comes to shove what most women are looking for is security through a man's earning potential. Anything that jeopardizes that becomes a hot button for most women. They may talk about it not being the 50s' etc but they want the security that was provided during that era but also the liberation that came about in the 60s' and 70s'. They have a problem with having to fend for themselves and that comes across loud and clear in the responses on this thread.

When problems arise, the blame is usually leveled against the guy and the standard response is to dump him and take him to the cleaners during the divorce. When a guy through a pre-nup essentially says he is not willing to place himself in that vulnerable position all logic goes to hell and he is accused of wanting a servant or a slave.

The argument about children is a red herring because they will be provided for in a divorce through child support and the amount is prescribed in most states by formula based on earnings. What these women really want is financial security through marriage and if things don't work out then financial security through a divorce. Guys with a lot of assets or a substantial income compared to the woman, are not willing to place everything at risk to placate a woman.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned ....... and on DCUM, hell hath no fury like a prenup that will not ensure the woman comes out ahead even in a divorce.

[Anonymous]

But honestly the biggest thing is that the terms of the prenup suggest he doesn't trust her... At all. Why would he marry her if that is the case? This relationship sounds like a massive trainwreck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No wonder he wants a pre-nup. Just read these responses. Pathetic talks about marrying "up" etc.

Sure she can leave him, and that might hurt him for a while but he'll find someone to sign that pre-nup. Yes, a lopsided one isn't ideal but you can also leave him and marry a poor guy with other problems you have no idea about.

Make your own money and don't worry about his.

Well, that's just it! When push comes to shove what most women are looking for is security through a man's earning potential. Anything that jeopardizes that becomes a hot button for most women. They may talk about it not being the 50s' etc but they want the security that was provided during that era but also the liberation that came about in the 60s' and 70s'. They have a problem with having to fend for themselves and that comes across loud and clear in the responses on this thread.

When problems arise, the blame is usually leveled against the guy and the standard response is to dump him and take him to the cleaners during the divorce. When a guy through a pre-nup essentially says he is not willing to place himself in that vulnerable position all logic goes to hell and he is accused of wanting a servant or a slave.

The argument about children is a red herring because they will be provided for in a divorce through child support and the amount is prescribed in most states by formula based on earnings. What these women really want is financial security through marriage and if things don't work out then financial security through a divorce. Guys with a lot of assets or a substantial income compared to the woman, are not willing to place everything at risk to placate a woman.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned ....... and on DCUM, hell hath no fury like a prenup that will not ensure the woman comes out ahead even in a divorce.

You seem to mistake all that for common decency and fairness. Generally I don't think a ton of people give a crap about prenups. In the end, it's about protecting assets that pre-date a marriage. Who cares about that?
This isn't that. He's attempting to hoard future earnings that would otherwise be marital property. And they would otherwise be marital property for a reason. Spouses support endeavors like start-up businesses in a lot of ways. Let's say she helps him by giving him weekends to devote to his business while she takes care of the kids. Both are potential things in the future, right? So while she grants him free child care, he's off creating a business and his family's time. Why shouldn't she share in the reward when she pays part of the costs associated with starting that business?
That's only one small example. It's bullshit. That's not placating a woman. That's common decency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of insecure women here looking for a good provider.

Why not try getting out and working so that you are no dependent on some guy's income whether you remain married or not? What ever happened to all the feminism and self-worth when it comes prenups?

Chuckling here. You must not read the unhappy wife postings where the woman works full-time and earns equal to the man AND does 80% of the childcare and work around the house. Or the ones when the wife earns more than the husband and the husband is not working full-time AND the wife does all the housework. I didn't think feminism meant doing everything for your husband and kids around the house while working full-time outside the home with no one looking to do anything for you but perhaps I'm wrong.

So provider no, I can provide for myself. However if I call myself having a partner in life, someone that can make life and death decisions if I am hospitalized, that can rack up thousands of dollars in debts that I could legally be liable for, that can clean out any of our joint back accounts on a whim, that I vow to stay with for richer or poorer and in sickness and a health, I would be a tad bit uncomfortable if that person is quantifying our time together saying so we can split assets to the penny what each of us puts in. If that's the case why even marry? You can keep it real separate by not marrying and keeping separate accounts and it will be easy to divvy up the furniture etc, when someone moves out. I couldn't imagine living with my husband constantly keeping a tally of how much each person is contributing to the marriage, so if he uses his frequent flier miles for vacation I should quantify it and pay extra that month for bills and If he is on the medical insurance thru my company, I have to charge him for his portion of care?

[Anonymous]

22:34, I wanted to add I would definitely make sure if I were the OP and ended up marrying that clown that he could not make life or death medical decisions for me. I'd be worried he would go cheap on the medical care so it wouldn't cut into getting my 20-40% of the house.

[Anonymous]

Op, does he try to control aspects of your current relationship like this? Is this a surprise to you, this type of behavior on his part?