One person wants a prenup and the other does not

[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.....

OP here. Who said I was in school? I'm not...so not sure why that keeps coming up. Also, I'm not wanting to be a stay at home mom forever, only a year, after the child is born. This, we both agree on.

[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.

Eh, I think this is just one of the first glimpses she's getting into his true character. People often change quite a bit after the wedding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What an absurd attempt to deflect .......... it does not respond to the points I made. Are you seriously denying that many - not all - women in the DC metro area measure just about everything in the context of money, including the men they go after?

FYI, I am married to an accomplished woman who is a professional in her own right and earns a substantial income. We have two daughters - both independent professionals who are well placed. One is a senior executive in a Fortune 100 company. What we taught them is that they don't need to depend on any man for their financial well-being while single, married or if they should ever get divorced.

Do you realize that what you are doing with your line of reasoning is to continue to make women dependent on their husbands? I hope that is not the lesson that you are imparting to your daughters, if you have any.

You and other PPs' insist that OP's guy is controlling even though she specifically states that he is not and the only reason that you say this is because you feel that all control manifests itself in the context of money. It is a very warped view of the role of money ....... just as skewed as OP's guy being all about money according to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are forgetting something. The guy doesn't have assets. He wants to open a business after they marry, but that business doesn't exist yet, nor is its success in any way guaranteed.

Let me ask you something. Why do you assume the business will generate significant wealth? Something like 90% of all businesses fail. His business may very well fail, too. He may make very little money. He may go bankrupt. Anything is possible. If he doesn't do well, would OP be expected to chip in, or support the family for a while? What if he becomes sick, or disabled? If you think he is perfectly justified to keep his money to himself, would OP be justified in walking away from him if his earning power becomes compromised? Would she be justified in refusing to contribute to household expenses if he doesn't do well? Since she won't share in wealth, why would she be expected to share in the misery? What if he has to go through bankruptcy and it affects OP's credit, or her income, when the creditors come after it?

[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.

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.....

OP here. Who said I was in school? I'm not...so not sure why that keeps coming up. Also, I'm not wanting to be a stay at home mom forever, only a year, after the child is born. This, we both agree on.

Then you simply earn and contribute a lot to your household, and you have no problem. Duh. ???! Why are there 18 pages of comments for something that is so straightforward? I think you are changing your tune, OP, since you've gotten some heat.

You can make the same amount as him. This is an area with a lot of opportunities. It helps if you are smart, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What are you planning to contribute to the marriage? This isn't 1950.

And this is a very expensive area. So how much do you make? What is the growth potential of your industry? You leave out so much info that no one has had any reference for what you mean. Does he make 3 million and you make 15k?

[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.

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.....

OP here. Who said I was in school? I'm not...so not sure why that keeps coming up. Also, I'm not wanting to be a stay at home mom forever, only a year, after the child is born. This, we both agree on.

So you will only have one child? I thought it was multiple, and that he was willing to "support" you while you stay home with the kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks all. I am still debating on everything and honestly, having a tough time. I can't go into too many details, as it will be a give away who I am. We are in our thirties, no previous marriages on either side. I will be contacting a lawyer but honestly, I can't afford one, at all. So I am stuck. As I said before, businesses, I don't care about. I can't run a business, and I have no desire to be a part of one. Not to mention, his business ideas don't even seem that great. As far as he saying no to a 401k or his retirement, do you all think that's fair? I will be working but taking a year off after (well, if) we get pregnant, and we hope for two kids. I have yet to start saving for retirement because I can't afford to set money aside. If I only contribute 20 percent, how would the house be split, considering that it also will always be in his name? I don't know who to talk to, lawyer, friends or family. I have none of the above. He is a nice guy and a gentleman, but very driven by money. He refuses marriage if there is no prenup. I don't want his money but at the same time, I have to protect myself and our future kids.

Change fields to make more money so that you can protect yourself. Get an education, or whatever it is that is keeping you in this little hell hole of a problem with this "gentleman" (interesting concept, you seem abused)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What an absurd attempt to deflect .......... it does not respond to the points I made. Are you seriously denying that many - not all - women in the DC metro area measure just about everything in the context of money, including the men they go after?

FYI, I am married to an accomplished woman who is a professional in her own right and earns a substantial income. We have two daughters - both independent professionals who are well placed. One is a senior executive in a Fortune 100 company. What we taught them is that they don't need to depend on any man for their financial well-being while single, married or if they should ever get divorced.

Do you realize that what you are doing with your line of reasoning is to continue to make women dependent on their husbands? I hope that is not the lesson that you are imparting to your daughters, if you have any.

You and other PPs' insist that OP's guy is controlling even though she specifically states that he is not and the only reason that you say this is because you feel that all control manifests itself in the context of money. It is a very warped view of the role of money ....... just as skewed as OP's guy being all about money according to her.

What an interesting response. The post you responded to was my first in this thread. My take on this thread: many posters have raised intriguing points for and against the prenup at issue. That's it. I simply responded to your post because of its startlingly antisocial tone and perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

THIS sums up the issue I have with so many of these posts. The women want the equality AND the option to quit and just stay home, which the rationale of "it's best for the family." That requires the man to be the provider. How does a husband say no to this without pissing the wife off? Yet if a husband said they wanted to quit their job "because it's best for the family" and forsake contributing to the family's income, that would be viewed by many -- not all -- women as unacceptable. Double standard.

Bleh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

THIS sums up the issue I have with so many of these posts. The women want the equality AND the option to quit and just stay home, which the rationale of "it's best for the family." That requires the man to be the provider. How does a husband say no to this without pissing the wife off? Yet if a husband said they wanted to quit their job "because it's best for the family" and forsake contributing to the family's income, that would be viewed by many -- not all -- women as unacceptable. Double standard.

Bleh.

First, many husbands can and do object to the idea of their wives staying at home. I know mine would. Second, there ARE SAHDs, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

THIS sums up the issue I have with so many of these posts. The women want the equality AND the option to quit and just stay home, which the rationale of "it's best for the family." That requires the man to be the provider. How does a husband say no to this without pissing the wife off? Yet if a husband said they wanted to quit their job "because it's best for the family" and forsake contributing to the family's income, that would be viewed by many -- not all -- women as unacceptable. Double standard.

Bleh.

Just insist on a prenup that weights the division of property heavily against either spouse who does not contribute to the family income unless both parties agree that for a time one will not work for whatever reason eg to be a SAHM or if one of the parties is going to pursue grad school, etc. But it has to be clearly defined and both parties must agree to it. If the SAHM decides that she will not go back to work, she will be penalized in the prenup or if the person chooses to go and study without the agreement of both husband and wife that individual will be similarly penalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

THIS sums up the issue I have with so many of these posts. The women want the equality AND the option to quit and just stay home, which the rationale of "it's best for the family." That requires the man to be the provider. How does a husband say no to this without pissing the wife off? Yet if a husband said they wanted to quit their job "because it's best for the family" and forsake contributing to the family's income, that would be viewed by many -- not all -- women as unacceptable. Double standard.

Bleh.

Just insist on a prenup that weights the division of property heavily against either spouse who does not contribute to the family income unless both parties agree that for a time one will not work for whatever reason eg to be a SAHM or if one of the parties is going to pursue grad school, etc. But it has to be clearly defined and both parties must agree to it. If the SAHM decides that she will not go back to work, she will be penalized in the prenup or if the person chooses to go and study without the agreement of both husband and wife that individual will be similarly penalized.

Here is the best prenup: work, do not contribute a penny to household income, have no claims on the house, do minimal housework, save all your money. It's free room and board in exchange for, I dunno, light housework and sex. No children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

THIS sums up the issue I have with so many of these posts. The women want the equality AND the option to quit and just stay home, which the rationale of "it's best for the family." That requires the man to be the provider. How does a husband say no to this without pissing the wife off? Yet if a husband said they wanted to quit their job "because it's best for the family" and forsake contributing to the family's income, that would be viewed by many -- not all -- women as unacceptable. Double standard.

Bleh.

First, many husbands can and do object to the idea of their wives staying at home. I know mine would. Second, there ARE SAHDs, you know.

I live in an area where most wives don't work even though their children are at school all day - some are teenagers. These wives spend their time at the gym, lunch with others in the same boat, coffee get togethers, etc.

Their husbands make enough money to enable them to enjoy their lifestyles driving BMWs', going for mani and pedicures, etc. All is well while they stay married and then all hell breaks loose.

I don't know of a single SAHD - there are a couple who work from home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

THIS sums up the issue I have with so many of these posts. The women want the equality AND the option to quit and just stay home, which the rationale of "it's best for the family." That requires the man to be the provider. How does a husband say no to this without pissing the wife off? Yet if a husband said they wanted to quit their job "because it's best for the family" and forsake contributing to the family's income, that would be viewed by many -- not all -- women as unacceptable. Double standard.

Bleh.

First, many husbands can and do object to the idea of their wives staying at home. I know mine would. Second, there ARE SAHDs, you know.

I live in an area where most wives don't work even though their children are at school all day - some are teenagers. These wives spend their time at the gym, lunch with others in the same boat, coffee get togethers, etc.

Their husbands make enough money to enable them to enjoy their lifestyles driving BMWs', going for mani and pedicures, etc. All is well while they stay married and then all hell breaks loose.

I don't know of a single SAHD - there are a couple who work from home.

Isn't that a problem of your social circle and not necessarily man/woman relationships? Is it your contention that no married women bring in a good chunk of income, frequently half or more?