One person wants a prenup and the other does not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, Shariah Law is not a bad set up for women.
WTF?

I guess it would be a good set up IF:

wife is content to be completely obedient, subservient, and stay at home and not have a career

the marriage is perfect, and wife never has a reason to be disobedient

the marriage stays intact and there is never a divorce

Under Sharia, it is true, a wife is not required to contribute financially at all to the marriage. However, in a divorce, she is not entitled to ANY marital property except for her mahr/bride price that the husband gave her upon the marriage contract being signed. That is why so many women stay in crappy marriages in Muslim countries, because if they do divorce they usually have no other options but to move back home with their parents.

In a divorce, if the children are not young, they are considered the husband's property and he gets sole custody. The wife gets custody if they are still very young, but then custody reverts to the ex husband once they reach a certain age. If the wife re-marries, she also looses custody, no matter the age of the child.

In Sharia, the only way a wife can seek a divorce is to ask her husband to divorce her (Talaq). A wife cannot initiate a divorce. If he refuses to give triple Talaq, her only recourse is to seek Khula with the Sharia court, and if she is granted Khula, she must pay her husband back her Mahr/bride price, so she is left with absolutely nothing at all.

Of course, if the marriage stays intact, the wife must make sure not to be disobedient, because under sharia, if the wife is disobedient, the husband is allowed to withhold maintenance (food, clothing, money), or hit her, until she submits.

There is also no such thing as marital rape in Sharia, as the wife is not legally allowed to refuse her husband for sex unless she has a valid Sharia reason (obligatory prayer or fasting, menstruation, or injury)

Yep, sounds like a wonderful thing. /sarc

Wow. Just wow.

[Anonymous]

I'm starting to think OP is a troll. Twenty pages of people arguing and she hasn't provided an update about her engagement.

[Anonymous]

So those who correctly argue that a value needs to be placed on a SAHM's services, I think where your argument goes awry is that if that same SAHM were to get divorced and have primary custody of a child/children, the amount she would get in child support would be considerably less than the imputed value of the SAHM's services.

Following this line of reasoning, if the finances were the main consideration, a husband would be way better off just getting a divorce and paying child support.

In fact an extension to this line of reasoning is that a guy would be better off just not marrying but living with a SO and having children but keeping his finances separate. Neither would have any claim to the other person's earnings or assets and they would contribute to household expenses on some agreed basis. If they go their own separate ways, child support becomes the sole obligation.

[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.

WTF! Ok sorry but why are you marrying a person like this! Thats ridiculous and I have most of the money in our marriage and would never ever make my DH agree to something like that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think OP is a troll. Twenty pages of people arguing and she hasn't provided an update about her engagement.

Lots of things don't add up. I think she is most likely younger than she claims ( by thirty many have a graduate degree and an established career track), is not engaged to but living with her boyfriend, and can't post updates comfortably BC she has been called out by so many people for multiple reasons. Maybe he is not interested in settling yet and saying this kind of stuff to clear up some expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think OP is a troll. Twenty pages of people arguing and she hasn't provided an update about her engagement.

Lots of things don't add up. I think she is most likely younger than she claims ( by thirty many have a graduate degree and an established career track), is not engaged to but living with her boyfriend, and can't post updates comfortably BC she has been called out by so many people for multiple reasons. Maybe he is not interested in settling yet and saying this kind of stuff to clear up some expectations.

Or it could be that almost everyone has been lambasting her for even considering marrying her guy under terms that they feel are onerous. Even when she says that he is not controlling, there are those who have dismissed it and refuse to accept what she is saying.

The sort of attitude that most have displayed on this thread about her situation is not one that would encourage anyone to want to come back and give more details.

I am just amazed at the snap judgements that people have made about her and her SO given that we know nothing about them. I would think the best thing to do would be to encourage OP if she is going to go ahead with this prenup to make sure that she develops the skills that she needs to get a job that would enable her to be viable in the event she ends up divorced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think OP is a troll. Twenty pages of people arguing and she hasn't provided an update about her engagement.

Lots of things don't add up. I think she is most likely younger than she claims ( by thirty many have a graduate degree and an established career track), is not engaged to but living with her boyfriend, and can't post updates comfortably BC she has been called out by so many people for multiple reasons. Maybe he is not interested in settling yet and saying this kind of stuff to clear up some expectations.

Or it could be that almost everyone has been lambasting her for even considering marrying her guy under terms that they feel are onerous. Even when she says that he is not controlling, there are those who have dismissed it and refuse to accept what she is saying.

The sort of attitude that most have displayed on this thread about her situation is not one that would encourage anyone to want to come back and give more details.

I am just amazed at the snap judgements that people have made about her and her SO given that we know nothing about them. I would think the best thing to do would be to encourage OP if she is going to go ahead with this prenup to make sure that she develops the skills that she needs to get a job that would enable her to be viable in the event she ends up divorced.

Because it is so controlling a prenup that it seems unreal. Maybe she is a troll. She certainly doesn't give any details or enough to make her story resonate with anyone, which is why they are so harsh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So those who correctly argue that a value needs to be placed on a SAHM's services, I think where your argument goes awry is that if that same SAHM were to get divorced and have primary custody of a child/children, the amount she would get in child support would be considerably less than the imputed value of the SAHM's services.

Following this line of reasoning, if the finances were the main consideration, a husband would be way better off just getting a divorce and paying child support.

In fact an extension to this line of reasoning is that a guy would be better off just not marrying but living with a SO and having children but keeping his finances separate. Neither would have any claim to the other person's earnings or assets and they would contribute to household expenses on some agreed basis. If they go their own separate ways, child support becomes the sole obligation.

I don't see a contradiction. Of course she would get less in child support - child support is just to cover the cost of raising children. Since she is no longer cleaning or cooking for the husband, she is not compensated for these things any more. This is why divorcing SAHMs are vulnerable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think OP is a troll. Twenty pages of people arguing and she hasn't provided an update about her engagement.

Lots of things don't add up. I think she is most likely younger than she claims ( by thirty many have a graduate degree and an established career track), is not engaged to but living with her boyfriend, and can't post updates comfortably BC she has been called out by so many people for multiple reasons. Maybe he is not interested in settling yet and saying this kind of stuff to clear up some expectations.

I don't think her boyfriend has proposed to her. They're not engaged.
Maybe she brought up marriage and he's just stalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think her boyfriend has proposed to her. They're not engaged.
Maybe she brought up marriage and he's just stalling.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
In fact an extension to this line of reasoning is that a guy would be better off just not marrying but living with a SO and having children but keeping his finances separate. Neither would have any claim to the other person's earnings or assets and they would contribute to household expenses on some agreed basis. If they go their own separate ways, child support becomes the sole obligation.

Upon reflection, far and away the best arrangement. Unless there are religious reasons, why bother to get married?

- Many women maintain their maiden names even after they get married
- There is no stigma attached to children whose parents are unmarried
- No complications with a prenup
- You can part company without any hassle if you don't get along
- Marriage may seem like a commitment but given the high failure rate, it really is a commitment only in theory
- If they split up then child support is not an issue because there is a legal obligation to pay irrespective of whether one is married
- Through a will/trust you can make sure your SO and child/children get part of your estate

So given all of the above can someone tell me why one would want to formalize the arrangement with marriage unless religious convictions come into play?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In fact an extension to this line of reasoning is that a guy would be better off just not marrying but living with a SO and having children but keeping his finances separate. Neither would have any claim to the other person's earnings or assets and they would contribute to household expenses on some agreed basis. If they go their own separate ways, child support becomes the sole obligation.

Upon reflection, far and away the best arrangement. Unless there are religious reasons, why bother to get married?

- Many women maintain their maiden names even after they get married
- There is no stigma attached to children whose parents are unmarried
- No complications with a prenup
- You can part company without any hassle if you don't get along
- Marriage may seem like a commitment but given the high failure rate, it really is a commitment only in theory
- If they split up then child support is not an issue because there is a legal obligation to pay irrespective of whether one is married
- Through a will/trust you can make sure your SO and child/children get part of your estate

So given all of the above can someone tell me why one would want to formalize the arrangement with marriage unless religious convictions come into play?

Health insurance for one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In fact an extension to this line of reasoning is that a guy would be better off just not marrying but living with a SO and having children but keeping his finances separate. Neither would have any claim to the other person's earnings or assets and they would contribute to household expenses on some agreed basis. If they go their own separate ways, child support becomes the sole obligation.

Upon reflection, far and away the best arrangement. Unless there are religious reasons, why bother to get married?

- Many women maintain their maiden names even after they get married
- There is no stigma attached to children whose parents are unmarried
- No complications with a prenup
- You can part company without any hassle if you don't get along
- Marriage may seem like a commitment but given the high failure rate, it really is a commitment only in theory
- If they split up then child support is not an issue because there is a legal obligation to pay irrespective of whether one is married
- Through a will/trust you can make sure your SO and child/children get part of your estate

So given all of the above can someone tell me why one would want to formalize the arrangement with marriage unless religious convictions come into play?

Health insurance for one.

Hardly an issue; if both are employed health insurance should be available and, if not, it can be purchased privately because of Obamacare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In fact an extension to this line of reasoning is that a guy would be better off just not marrying but living with a SO and having children but keeping his finances separate. Neither would have any claim to the other person's earnings or assets and they would contribute to household expenses on some agreed basis. If they go their own separate ways, child support becomes the sole obligation.

Upon reflection, far and away the best arrangement. Unless there are religious reasons, why bother to get married?

- Many women maintain their maiden names even after they get married
- There is no stigma attached to children whose parents are unmarried
- No complications with a prenup
- You can part company without any hassle if you don't get along
- Marriage may seem like a commitment but given the high failure rate, it really is a commitment only in theory
- If they split up then child support is not an issue because there is a legal obligation to pay irrespective of whether one is married
- Through a will/trust you can make sure your SO and child/children get part of your estate

So given all of the above can someone tell me why one would want to formalize the arrangement with marriage unless religious convictions come into play?

cheaper health insurance
cheaper car insurance
tax break

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think OP is a troll. Twenty pages of people arguing and she hasn't provided an update about her engagement.

Lots of things don't add up. I think she is most likely younger than she claims ( by thirty many have a graduate degree and an established career track), is not engaged to but living with her boyfriend, and can't post updates comfortably BC she has been called out by so many people for multiple reasons. Maybe he is not interested in settling yet and saying this kind of stuff to clear up some expectations.

I don't think her boyfriend has proposed to her. They're not engaged.
Maybe she brought up marriage and he's just stalling.

+100000 bingo