One person wants a prenup and the other does not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling OP won't post an update.

OP here. There is nothing to update, sorry. I am still thinking about it. He really isn't a jerk, at all. He isn't the least bit controlling. He is however, all about money.

OP, You claim your fiance is not controlling, but I really have trouble believing that.

Based on my own experience growing up, it sounds to me that you might be from a military family. That would explain your student-to-stay-at-home mom path, as well as your comfort with the power imbalance in your relationship.

[Anonymous]

A prenup is fine in theory but sounds like he considers your contribution as a possible SAHM zero. Good luck to you. IMO a prenup, in short, should be - you each own what you brought into the marriage, you split 50/50 what is made during the marriage. Your guy is nowhere close to that, he considers your worth to be next to nothing.

[Anonymous]

Op, how much more does he make? He makes 75k and you 30k? So we can understand... Anuthing . is he in a growth industry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A prenup is fine in theory but sounds like he considers your contribution as a possible SAHM zero. Good luck to you. IMO a prenup, in short, should be - you each own what you brought into the marriage, you split 50/50 what is made during the marriage. Your guy is nowhere close to that, he considers your worth to be next to nothing.

This, OP. Your "man" doesn't respect you and will be completely checked out of parenting by the sounds of it. Save yourself the grief.

[Anonymous]

Are you a mail order bride?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

He clearly doesn't trust her. And this will not end well. But she'll sign and be the little housewife and have his three kids, taking her into her mid thirties, at which point she will be unattractive, and then he'll inevitably cheat (bc the prenup guarantees him total control) and if she finally gets enough self esteem to leave him, she'll get her 40k that she has put of her measly salary into their joint account and have a downpayment in some random Tennessee /Florida / Texas suburb, but little chance of meaningful employment. Or he will just divorce her without warning when he bags a rich girl. The kids will love him bc he will be loaded. She'll be the gimp mother who is always struggling, maybe living with her mom.

[Anonymous]

If you don't contribute anything to the income or contribute only a small percentage or you choose not to work, what is your justification for expecting half the assets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't contribute anything to the income or contribute only a small percentage or you choose not to work, what is your justification for expecting half the assets?

Staying home with the children and providing full-time childcare is a contribution. You already know this, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't contribute anything to the income or contribute only a small percentage or you choose not to work, what is your justification for expecting half the assets?

Staying home with the children and providing full-time childcare is a contribution. You already know this, of course.

If she has such low earning power, it is doubtful that she could out earn a nanny. Lets say she earns typical wages for a recent graduate- which she isn't BC she is still in school. But lets assume she earns 35 k. That is what a nanny earns. To justify her not staying home, she needs to be earning 60k minimum, but preferably 90k and up. That is not going to happen.... So she really has no choice whatsoever in this scenario. She has no choice but to be a SAHM, and she has no real choice but to sign his prenup.

But he is not controlling, at all.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't contribute anything to the income or contribute only a small percentage or you choose not to work, what is your justification for expecting half the assets?

Staying home with the children and providing full-time childcare is a contribution. You already know this, of course.

NP here but you're taking it for granted that such contribution is worth half the assets. It's certainly worth something but depending on the amount of assets involved it may not be worth half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't contribute anything to the income or contribute only a small percentage or you choose not to work, what is your justification for expecting half the assets?

Staying home with the children and providing full-time childcare is a contribution. You already know this, of course.

If she has such low earning power, it is doubtful that she could out earn a nanny. Lets say she earns typical wages for a recent graduate- which she isn't BC she is still in school. But lets assume she earns 35 k. That is what a nanny earns. To justify her not staying home, she needs to be earning 60k minimum, but preferably 90k and up. That is not going to happen.... So she really has no choice whatsoever in this scenario. She has no choice but to be a SAHM, and she has no real choice but to sign his prenup.

But he is not controlling, at all.....

She doesn't need to justify staying home if she doesn't want to stay home. He can pay for a nanny if he's so flush (and I don't have a sense that he is, just that he makes more, which isn't saying much.)

What do you mean she has no choice but to be a SAHM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't contribute anything to the income or contribute only a small percentage or you choose not to work, what is your justification for expecting half the assets?

Staying home with the children and providing full-time childcare is a contribution. You already know this, of course.

NP here but you're taking it for granted that such contribution is worth half the assets. It's certainly worth something but depending on the amount of assets involved it may not be worth half.

Exactly! Besides she may not even have children and what happens when she does not need to be a SAHM and still earns materially less than her husband.

What's with these women who insist we don't live in the fifties in terms of the role of women but yet expect for men to provide for them as if they were wives from the fifties?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't contribute anything to the income or contribute only a small percentage or you choose not to work, what is your justification for expecting half the assets?

Staying home with the children and providing full-time childcare is a contribution. You already know this, of course.

NP here but you're taking it for granted that such contribution is worth half the assets. It's certainly worth something but depending on the amount of assets involved it may not be worth half.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that being a SAHM is necessarily worth half of this guy's assets. But forsaking a career and staying home with their kids, even if it doesn't match up monetarily, isn't worth nothing.

Personally, I think the way this guy is going about it signals that he absolutely does not intend to remain married in the long term, and that his money his far more important to him (like faaaaaaar, far more) than OP is. I understand the inclination to protect one's assets upon entering a marriage, but surely actual love should play some part of it all, no? This guy sounds like he wants a transaction, in which case he should just go to a prostitute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't contribute anything to the income or contribute only a small percentage or you choose not to work, what is your justification for expecting half the assets?

Staying home with the children and providing full-time childcare is a contribution. You already know this, of course.

NP here but you're taking it for granted that such contribution is worth half the assets. It's certainly worth something but depending on the amount of assets involved it may not be worth half.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that being a SAHM is necessarily worth half of this guy's assets. But forsaking a career and staying home with their kids, even if it doesn't match up monetarily, isn't worth nothing.

Personally, I think the way this guy is going about it signals that he absolutely does not intend to remain married in the long term, and that his money his far more important to him (like faaaaaaar, far more) than OP is. I understand the inclination to protect one's assets upon entering a marriage, but surely actual love should play some part of it all, no? This guy sounds like he wants a transaction, in which case he should just go to a prostitute.

According to the OP, the guy is nothing as you describe other than being obsessed about money.She says he is not controlling which, of course, women on this forum dismiss because he wants a prenup they feel is one-sided. The irony is that not only is the guy apparently obsessed about money, but most women who have been lambasting him are as well because they make all of their judgements about him based on his demands for a prenup.

Women especially in this area of the country are all about money. It is one of the main criteria when it comes to finding a husband and it continues through marriage and then divorce. They are no less obsessed about money than is OP's guy who does not want to be taken to the cleaners in the event of divorce and all power to him for making sure that does not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't contribute anything to the income or contribute only a small percentage or you choose not to work, what is your justification for expecting half the assets?

Staying home with the children and providing full-time childcare is a contribution. You already know this, of course.

NP here but you're taking it for granted that such contribution is worth half the assets. It's certainly worth something but depending on the amount of assets involved it may not be worth half.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that being a SAHM is necessarily worth half of this guy's assets. But forsaking a career and staying home with their kids, even if it doesn't match up monetarily, isn't worth nothing.

Personally, I think the way this guy is going about it signals that he absolutely does not intend to remain married in the long term, and that his money his far more important to him (like faaaaaaar, far more) than OP is. I understand the inclination to protect one's assets upon entering a marriage, but surely actual love should play some part of it all, no? This guy sounds like he wants a transaction, in which case he should just go to a prostitute.

According to the OP, the guy is nothing as you describe other than being obsessed about money.She says he is not controlling which, of course, women on this forum dismiss because he wants a prenup they feel is one-sided. The irony is that not only is the guy apparently obsessed about money, but most women who have been lambasting him are as well because they make all of their judgements about him based on his demands for a prenup.

Women especially in this area of the country are all about money. It is one of the main criteria when it comes to finding a husband and it continues through marriage and then divorce. They are no less obsessed about money than is OP's guy who does not want to be taken to the cleaners in the event of divorce and all power to him for making sure that does not happen.

PP, when I read a post like yours (with the standard "women . . . are all about money" nonsense), I can't help but wonder if this might become part of a paper trail that will show up in the court records of someone being tried for gruesome crimes against women.