One person wants a prenup and the other does not

[Anonymous]

Move on.

He will make you so unhappy.

Any relationship built on distrust and the expectation it will fail is crazy unhealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh you naive one. People do marry for health insurance alone. I did last year.

I have excellent health insurance through my public school employer. But my partner of 20 years couldn't access it because the federal govt and my employer wouldn't recognize same sex marriage. A year ago, the fed recognized it, but my employer still doesn't. I work in Virginia where the ban on same sex marriage will likely overturn in the next year. We got legally married because I want her to have my health insurance and save our family thousands of dollars in premiums. She's a consultant and has her own. She makes too much money for Obamacare.

So yes, people do get married for health insurance.

[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.

Op is a trophy wife

[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.

Op is a trophy wife

No, OP's successor will be the trophy. She is the doormat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Op is a trophy wife

No, OP's successor will be the trophy. She is the doormat.

no, she is marrying for money. A woman in a relationship like that will never be equal to her man. Some men do not want to marry their equal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Op is a trophy wife

No, OP's successor will be the trophy. She is the doormat.

no, she is marrying for money. A woman in a relationship like that will never be equal to her man. Some men do not want to marry their equal

Many women marry for money though it may not be something they would concede. Women generally look for a good provider - which means someone who makes enough money to enable them to live a comfortable life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Op is a trophy wife

No, OP's successor will be the trophy. She is the doormat.

no, she is marrying for money. A woman in a relationship like that will never be equal to her man. Some men do not want to marry their equal

perhaps, but the terms of the prenup suggest that she had better do everything the way he likes it... or she is out on the street with the 'nothing' that she contributed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Op is a trophy wife

No, OP's successor will be the trophy. She is the doormat.

no, she is marrying for money. A woman in a relationship like that will never be equal to her man. Some men do not want to marry their equal

Many women marry for money though it may not be something they would concede. Women generally look for a good provider - which means someone who makes enough money to enable them to live a comfortable life.

and there is nothing wrong with that... but pick one who will actually provide for you, not one who is planning to screw you over royally if given the chance.

[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?

You may say there's "no stigma" but I think people do still look sideways at women who have babies outside of marriage, at least in my SES. Sure, they don't openly discriminate anymore, but deep down, there's a prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Op is a trophy wife

No, OP's successor will be the trophy. She is the doormat.

no, she is marrying for money. A woman in a relationship like that will never be equal to her man. Some men do not want to marry their equal

perhaps, but the terms of the prenup suggest that she had better do everything the way he likes it... or she is out on the street with the 'nothing' that she contributed.

OP is not contributing anything. Just 20% of family expenses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Op is a trophy wife

No, OP's successor will be the trophy. She is the doormat.

no, she is marrying for money. A woman in a relationship like that will never be equal to her man. Some men do not want to marry their equal

perhaps, but the terms of the prenup suggest that she had better do everything the way he likes it... or she is out on the street with the 'nothing' that she contributed.

OP is not contributing anything. Just 20% of family expenses

don't you have to wonder why?

[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?

You may say there's "no stigma" but I think people do still look sideways at women who have babies outside of marriage, at least in my SES. Sure, they don't openly discriminate anymore, but deep down, there's a prejudice.

I know several couples who are unmarried but have children - some have been together for years. I don't know a single person who has made any comment, directly or indirectly, that stigmatizes these women or their offspring.

It is viewed as a personal choice and given the number of women who have children out of wedlock of every ethnicity, this is becoming increasingly common. Unfortunately, in many cases these are women who are not even in a sustained ongoing relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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

Peanuts. You're obviously female.

[Anonymous]

OP, no updates?

[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?

I got married because we felt it important that we made a public and notorious commitment to each other in the presence of several hundred friends and family who are all asked to support our marriage. It may not mean much to some but I like to think this headed off a bit of the gossip and behind closed doors criticisms of the marriage or one of couple. Through the years many of those people and others have helped strengthen our bond and I believe in some circumstances that it made a difference that we were married.

But I'm just some guy with a crap job and two noisy kids.

Marriage may seem like a commitment but given the high failure rate, it really is a commitment only in theory

Can someone explain how this statement is supposed to make any sense?