Those men also consider the cost benefit analysis. Being powerful, and a bachelor, is never a good idea. Your spouse can have tremendous influence on your allies, neutrals, and enemies. From charm & beauty to ruthless pragmatism, spouses of wealthy men are chosen well; usually to further their personal goals. I.e. wives of presidents are usually politically involved (Clinton, Obama, Reagan). Or serve their country as FLOTUS to charm and win over hesitant neutrals, strengthen allies, or soften up enemies (Notably both Bushes and Carter). They don't pick some random person, who strikes their fancy, their choices are motivated by a mutual desire to have a powerful partner that will strengthen and support them and ultimately help reach their goals. The common middle-class individual focuses on love, emotion, and connection. I'm not saying that powerful couples don't love each other, but their marriage is built on more than pure attraction and desire.
Plus rich men and women can afford the best lawyers to create an airtight prenup, and can legally 'hide' assets, so there is very little to actually take.
Tennisace posts something like Japan's overwork deaths problem, with 80% victims being men and yet focuses entirely on women. Yup, totally the same as focusing on the gender that actually is more likely to get unfair treatment. Also, he's a man that focuses on women to push some kind of agenda, vs people being concerned about something that can actually affect them. Also the same.
Yeah, no, it being shared means it is completely yours and just so happens that it's also completely your spouse's. Both of you have all the rights to all of it. As such, both sides lose 50%. Which I said at least three times in this thread, so the only reason why it seems like I'm assuming that all property becomes solely the man's is because you misunderstand joint property, felt the need to project some nonsense on me and didn't bother to read the thread.
That kinda varies depending on where you live.
That would be all fine and dandy if he didn't do this exact thing just with gender swap. And introducing irrelevant concept like gender pay gap while misunderstanding the most common reasons for dissent about it, doing so with an appeal to ridicule on top of that, is like, the most rational one can get.
Pinnacle of love....sentimentalist rubbish.
Many wealthy men do get married. And if they have a single functioning neuron, they get an ironclad prenup first.
Myself? I've never cared about anyone romantically more than a passing thing. I'm firmly in the United States middle class. If i did meet someone for anything more than a 1-nighter, I'd live with them perhaps, but marriage and kids will never AND THE ROCK MEANS EVER happen for me.
I like keeping my options open, and I don't like having to consider someone else's opinion ( except at my job, where I'm being paid). Being able to walk away from anyone if they piss me off is priority 1 for me.
I value wealth too much? Forgive the borderline insult, but that is the statement of an idealist. I assume your were taught the Golden Rule as a child.
Well permit me to shatter your childhood assumptions with the REAL Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
Men lie and cheat.
Women lie and cheat.
The math does not lie.
Nah. Marriage is pretty swell.
Bad relationships are not the result of marriage.
It doesn't matter who is more likely to be affected by it; if you consider only one group and ignore the rest, then you are being biased and unfair towards all groups. Now, if you focus on one group, but keep in mind all of them - then yes, that would be fair. Many people here, however, don't bother: read some posters, and they will have you believe that "blah-blah-blah, women steal possessions from men during divorce, blah-blah-blah" - such crazy representation is exactly what people like Tennisace do, they are just on the other bank of the river.
I'm really tired of all this crap: "group X is to blame for the problems of group Y". Take some responsibility for once, damn it!
Just because you value wealth so much and relationships so low, doesn't mean everyone does.
This isn't valuing relationships so low
Take it from someone who has been in a lot of relationships, this is called being a responsible adult
In the vast majority of cases you don't become a wealthy person by being emotional and irrational; you certainly don't stay one
You have to grow up and understand that life isn't unicorns and rainbows; you have to act responsibly, especially with money, because idealism and feelings don't pay the bills or your kids' college tuitions
If you're not wealthy or your partner is of roughly equal means, there isn't much to discuss.
It's when there's a disparity in wealth/income that absolutely prenups become necessary (even though they get overturned too often), and protecting your assets becomes a simple matter of responsible financial planning.
Edit:
By the way, all those wealthy successful people who are married? Guess what the Panama Papers that just got leaked show. Yep, the wealthy have offshore trusts protecting their assets in case of divorce. Rich people aren't irresponsibly following their feelings, they're adults following the advice of financial advisers who plan for an uncertain future
Last edited by mmoca8403991fd; 2016-04-05 at 07:02 AM.
I worked very hard to acquire the assets i have today. I have a 9-5 job and a small business. All the money i put in my house and my business is an investment in to my future and no matter what happens i will always have my own house. It would be nothing short of lunacy to gamble this security on a promise of eternal love since 47% of all marriages in Sweden end in divorce. It's practically the same as gambling it all on red or black at the roulette table in a Casino.
Then there is also the factor on inheritance. If you stand to inherit from your parents your wife will be entitled to half of that inheritance unless your parents has stipulated in their will that it was the sole property of their offspring something that a lot of people don't specify in their wills.
A shrewd lady could possibly walk out of a divorce with not only half of your life work, but also half of your parents. Be ware.
I agree that it is a good idea to take reasonable precautions, but there is a difference between reasonable precautions and paranoia. "I believe my marriage will succeed, but, just in case it doesn't, I'll take some measures to make sure I don't accidentally end up broke" - reasonable. "I have seen so many cases of marriages ruining people's lives, that I will never marry anyone, or if I do, I will make sure that my wife gets nothing of my possessions if it fails" - paranoia.
Just compare the costs vs the benefits
Not getting married doesn't mean you can't have fun and fulfilling relationships, even kids
The upside is very limited; the downside, life-destroying
It's not surprising only 25% of young people even want to get married now, and the number keeps dropping
Well , been married almost 10 years ... Couldn't image ever being single again. My wife is truly my best friend and bonus she has a vagina !!! Its a win , win ... Some of these post are a little dramatic lol.....
This is probably why prenups are not more common even though the whole stereotype of the gold digging harlot is older than dirt by now. People are attracted to confidence and forcing your potential spouse to sign a prenup is probably the least alpha thing you could do, since it signals that you're frightened and uncertain about the future and want some protection from risk. Now, that might be a logical and rational thing to do, but there's a reason why people who haul out the actuarial tables for every important decision they face in life aren't exactly viewed with high esteem by society.
Those laws come from an era where women were household dependents of men, like children
Children don't "help amass" wealth, they just need to be protected and provided for because they can't be expected to earn, just as women were not expected to earn
These laws have no place in the modern world