# Poll: Pre-nups



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

I just found out a friend of mine had his wife sign a pre-nup. And she did it. WTF?! 

Would you sign one? Me, no 'effin way. I figure any guy who's proposing who is planning his out from the get-go, I'd better off parting ways with right from the start. I mean, let's just cut to the chase, end it right at the beginning, and save ourselves a whole lot of time and paperwork.


----------



## Sabine (Jan 12, 2004)

Hello Kitty said:


> I just found out a friend of mine had his wife sign a pre-nup. And she did it. WTF?!
> 
> Would you sign one? Me, no 'effin way. I figure any guy who's proposing who is planning his out from the get-go, I'd better off parting ways with right from the start. I mean, let's just cut to the chase, end it right at the beginning, and save ourselves a whole lot of time and paperwork.


I would just sign the pre-nup and then kill him for the money.

Sabine


----------



## Christine (Feb 11, 2004)

Well, marriage was a business arrangement long before it was romanticized. And people were only living until the age of 40 or so, therefore the high divorce rates nowadays (at least that's part of it.)

Considering that in most divorces, the lawyers are the only winners, plus the fact that 1 out of every 3 marriages ends.....may not be such a bad idea.

It would depend on the arrangement, not sure I'd sign one if it meant giving up all security in the event that it leaves me single, much older and with a bunch of kids. But I'm sure there's more to it than that, and each one is different.


----------



## Impy (Jan 6, 2004)

You know what, if I got married again, I'd probably draw up the pre-nup myself. Honest. I also would never consider marrying a guy without knowing his credit history.


----------



## amg (Nov 8, 2004)

Well, of course. If anything went wrong, I wouldn't want him to get all my money...


----------



## AK Ken (Jan 10, 2004)

*Too right!*



amg said:


> Well, of course. If anything went wrong, I wouldn't want him to get all my money...


You say that, but I was the first to cast a vote saying I would sign...hmmm...in any case, depending on the state, the pre-nupt may be superceded by state community property statutes anyway. You can't legally agree to something that is illegal.

Ken


----------



## deanna (Jan 15, 2004)

i live in a "no fault" state... everything is (supposedly) divided equally between the splitting duo. since i'm poor, not much to take!  

besides, when I grow up, i'm going to be a crazy cat lady!


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

Christine said:


> Well, marriage was a business arrangement long before it was romanticized. And people were only living until the age of 40 or so, therefore the high divorce rates nowadays (at least that's part of it.)
> 
> Considering that in most divorces, the lawyers are the only winners, plus the fact that 1 out of every 3 marriages ends.....may not be such a bad idea.
> 
> It would depend on the arrangement, not sure I'd sign one if it meant giving up all security in the event that it leaves me single, much older and with a bunch of kids. But I'm sure there's more to it than that, and each one is different.


Well in this case he made a ton of money in telecommunications before meeting her. But still, the whole idea that _"I'll marry you *if * I can keep my stuff after we divorce,"_ is flawed thinking all the way around. Why bother?

You know what? Sometimes, perhaps often times, money is a curse.


----------



## sarahk (May 25, 2004)

There's too many divorces these days. I would sign one. If I had anything, I would make one up myself (thru lawyer whatever). Divorces are messy and nasty. With a good lawyer you can get the other person's stuff wether you deserve it or not. Someon will try to get the mose stuff out of the deal just to try to hurt the other person. If your the nice guy, you'll be left with nothing.

My solution: I'm not getting married. 

Sarah


----------



## brownieinSC (Apr 19, 2004)

*I personally wouldn't sign one*

Maybe under certain circumstances, like if someone was going to be able to do something to the family buisness and mess up my entire family in a divorce, I could understand. Otherwise, I wouldn't marry someone I thought might screw me later and I would hate to think I could do something like that. Unless someone breaks a marriage vow, I think everything that is earned together in your marriage should get a 50/50 split in the end. 
Of course I have no plans of ever finding that out. I am very happily married


----------



## crashedandburned (Jan 9, 2004)

Hello Kitty said:


> I just found out a friend of mine had his wife sign a pre-nup. And she did it. WTF?!
> 
> Would you sign one? Me, no 'effin way. I figure any guy who's proposing who is planning his out from the get-go, I'd better off parting ways with right from the start. I mean, let's just cut to the chase, end it right at the beginning, and save ourselves a whole lot of time and paperwork.


 Are you sure that he's planning his "out" or just covering his a$$ in case something happens. I'm actually surprised that more men don't do it. I've already told my GF that I wouldn't even CONSIDER marriage w/o a pre-nup. She's OK with that. I was lucky after my first marriage, but I don't plan on being that naive again. And this just doesn't apply to men. I've seen some women taken to the cleaners also. Ever met a Denny's waitress that had to pay alimony? I have. Getting a pre-nup is just a smart thing to do. How many times have you ever told ex bf's that you love them and be with them forever just to wind up hating them for cheating on you?


----------



## Drewdane (Dec 19, 2003)

Hello Kitty said:


> I just found out a friend of mine had his wife sign a pre-nup. And she did it. WTF?!
> 
> Would you sign one? Me, no 'effin way. I figure any guy who's proposing who is planning his out from the get-go, I'd better off parting ways with right from the start. I mean, let's just cut to the chase, end it right at the beginning, and save ourselves a whole lot of time and paperwork.


It's a tough question. If your friend is a pimply-faced geek who never had a date, much less lost his virginity, until he came into a big ol' buttload o' cash, I wouldn't blame him for wanting to protect himself from potential gold-diggers (same goes for his female counterparts, BTW). If he's a relatively normal, decent guy with a relatively normal, decent dating/sex life, a prenup may be a little over the top. You think Melinda (Melissa? Whatever.) Gates didn't have a squad of lawyers crawl all over her before Bill walked her down the aisle?

How long were they dating? If they met last week at the casino where she threw herself at him after watching him lose $20K at blackjack without blinking an eye, *prenup all the way, bay-bee*! If they've been together for years, and she stood by him through thick and thin while he patiently built his empire from scratch, well, maybe a prenup's a little much.

As in most of life's little situations, it all depends.


----------



## Mary Ann (Jan 13, 2004)

It's hard to answer this question in a hypothetical way because I see both sides. All I can say is that I don't see one is necessary for my relationship, and I hate the idea of planning an "out" as you're starting a life together. Definitely not romantic.

But I can certainly see the need in certain cases, especially 2nd marriages. For example, if my dad were to marry his girlfriend (they're both widowed with separate households and families), I would not expect them to combine their assets. Her kids should get her things and we would get our dad's. But this is moot since Dad says they'll never even live together, let alone get married! ;-) Anyway it works for them, so more power to them.

Bottom line: Not against them, but probably won't ever be signing one.
Mary Ann


----------



## trailrash (Jan 7, 2005)

The way I see it...if you have to even consider the idea of having a pre-nup, you might as well not even get married. All it tells me is:

1. He doesn't have enough faith in her or himself.
2. He doesn't appreciate the how awesome marriage can be.
3. He doesn't have enough faith in their relationship to be in it for the long haul.

I hate the fact that so many couples default to divorce whenever their relationship falls on hard times. Whatever happened to "until death do us part?" 

Now, some of you may ask: "What if one person cheats on the other?" My rebuttal is: You shouldn't let it get to that point. If you're thinking about cheating on your spouse, wake up and realize that there's some things that need to be worked out in the relationship. Do whatever you need to do to make it right again...see a therapist if you have to. Don't make a [email protected] mistake by sleeping with someone else...that's just plain disrespectful.


----------



## kept man (Jan 13, 2004)

Well, I figure some rich kid oughta chime in ... though Kitty got off to a bit of a rough start for me here, her "money as curse" has really nailed it (for me, at least). It's better than the alternative, to be sure, but money has some serious pitfalls.

I don't like the fact that I was required, by my family corporation, to have a prenup when I got married - or have both of us 'cut off' down the road when the money will actually be mine. Believe me. I mean, do you think I wanted to sit there and discuss with a bunch of lawyers the worst case scenario of the best thing to ever happen to me? No. I hated it as much - if not more - than anyone.

I was in no way "planning my out" ... and nor were my family when the prenup stipulation was written into the shareholders agreement. But there is a reasonable perspective for having a prenup, as uncomfortable as the situation still is.

I knew that Mrs. Kept was never after me for the money ... though to be honest, there had been a few incidents in the past. And as sh!tty as having to deal with the prenup was, it was nothing compared to how it felt to have people look at you like a lottery ticket. I'm a pretty normal guy - public school, I worked to pay for university, I don't live lavishly, even my mountain bike is faaar from blingy, etc.. But it could never be kept a secret who my family was, and what that meant. 

And until you've had the experience of realizing that someone is only on a date with you because they want you to buy them schazzy gifts as they windowshop, or bring you along to a big dinner out and then expect you to pick up the bill, or even have a fellow grad student come up and ask if your family would sponsor their schooling - while you are paying for your degree out of your own pocket - well ... and you never get to be young and stupid and mess around because you don't know the other persons' motivations, and if you sleep with someone, you can get focked in more than just the obvious meaning. It's cliche, but it happened to 2 other kids I knew. A guy and a girl.

Plus, everyone expects/wants you to be a complete ass hole ... people love the Paris Hiltons of the world. 

But back to the prenup: from the perspective of my family, signing a prenup was a good thing because it was a way of being able to demonstrate to everyone else that Mrs. Kept wasn't after me for the money. I don't like the argument very much, and I'm not saying it makes things better, but there is truth to it. I'm also not saying that if the choice had been mine I would have made Mrs. Kept sign a prenup, because I wouldn't have. But pragmatically, I can see why they can be a good idea.


----------



## MidAtlanticXCer (May 21, 2004)

*uh-oh, nuance*



Drewdane said:


> It's a tough question. ...As in most of life's little situations, it all depends.


Much too thoughtful, Drewdane! I'm in the no way in h*** camp, myself. But I am married to a no way in h***er, too, so it all works out.


----------



## Drewdane (Dec 19, 2003)

Too right, Mr. K! I had a friend in college who was a trust fund baby, and because of his money he was about the most wary, mistrustful person I ever knew when it came to making friends and dating. Everybody in his circle of friends (including me) had to prove themselves to him, otherwise he'd assume _for his own protection _ they were out for a free ride of some sort. I didn't blame him a bit, either.


----------



## konahottie_311 (May 26, 2005)

*I would.....*

I think that if I married into money and the guy asked me to sign I would. If I loved him and he loved me then that would be enough. I wouldnt think of it as out but that if something went wrong we would leave the relationship with what we went into it with.
On the other hand if it was a long them thing from college..to kids and house and then he leaves you for the younger women then that would not be fair.....so it does depend on the circumstances. K


----------



## AK Ken (Jan 10, 2004)

Bingo, MA--my dad remarried a few years after my mom died, sold his place and moved in with the new wife. The pre-nupt stipulates that her kids will get her property, but if she dies first he can continue to live there as long as he likes.

Ken


----------



## kept man (Jan 13, 2004)

Drew, I tend to be a pretty good judge of character, so between that and not tending to 'out' myself, it is usually pretty easy to tell about people ... so before they find/figure it out, you know by and large how most people will react, and can thus act first accordingly ...


----------



## noslogan (Jan 21, 2004)

*Women are from Vicious*

Men are from Moron.

Big dumb man talking here.

I would love to see a study of this situation.

Let's say a guy becomes a stay at home dad so his wife can have her career as a very powerful boss type lady. Very happy, yadda yadda, rich too, maybe. It lasts for ten or so years.

Say the merriage ends because they've "grown apart" with no pre-nupt. And with child.
Dad doesn't even ask for support. He can go back to what he GAVE UP. He thinks that it is obvious that the child would be cut down the middle, er, I meant a joint custody.

Three or four years later he's riding nothing but Sevens. The kid is 14 and accidently mentions to mom the hot blonde bim that flew with dad to Seven to be personally fitted for his and her bikes. (gross, I hate his and her bikes)
Mom sees them together at the local Detreichs giggling and squeezin', two ti rigs rubbin up against each other as well.

The mother SNAPS internally. She goes to a lawyer and needs child support, full custody and back EVERYTHING. 
They've been divorced four years, he had nothing during the merriage and after. He became rich. She now gets half. (depending on the state.)

Men just want to forget and move on. Women are ruthless.
Women's conquests are more valuable than a man's.

NO ONE EVER KNOWS WHAT KIND OF FREAKY THINGS CAN HAPPEN.
Never married, 11 years and forevermore with the same woman.


----------



## Wherewolf (Jan 17, 2004)

*I'm no expert but...*

I'm no expert on marriage but Suze Orman says both parties should have a pre-nup. And Dr. Phil often says "the person you marry is a lot different than the person you divorce".


----------



## rapwithtom (Feb 26, 2004)

I will not marry without a pre-nup.

Our federal and state laws already define the contract you are entering into when you marry, including what happens if/when you divorce (admittedly sometimes ambiguously). So what is wrong with a couple rewriting /modifying that contract to suit their own situation? If the couple is truly intimate and secure, they certainly should be able to talk about the uniqueness of their particular situation and be able to define the consequences of both success and failure of their relationship much better than any stupid old government could.

The notion of refusing to talk about pre-nups because it entertains the possibility of failure in a marriage is IMHO romantic never never land. I think it is a harbinger that bodes poorly for the future of a relationship because it shows the likely way in which a person plans to deal with future unpleasantries in a relationship: sweeping them under the carpet, instead of confronting them.

Tom
PS - Quite obviously a guy!


----------



## FreeRangeChicken (Jan 13, 2004)

Nothing says "I Love You" like a pre-nup. 

I have a pretty long winded answer to this which basically amounts to "my emotional side says pre-nups suck and I would be offended to be asked to sign one, but my intellectual side can definitely see the need in some cases."

Not to thread-jack, but what if we're talking about a gay couple?

Oh wait, silly me, this isn't an issue because the _institution of marriage_ is being "protected" from _them._ (sorry, probably belongs in the political forum, but its pretty much impossible to get a rational discussion going over there these days)


----------



## alaskarider (Aug 31, 2004)

*no pre-nup for us*

My fiance and I discussed it long before we got engaged and agreed that neither of us would do one. It helps that we both have good (marketable) educations and jobs...overall, I will make a little more than him but he has a more expensive bike, so it all evens out in the end.

In my opinion, divorce is way too easy in this country (probably partly because way too many people get married before they really should), and having a pre-nup just makes it easier. No relationship is perfect, but my fiance and I believe that it's the effort of working through the hard times that will make the marriage stronger and more rewarding in the end. We've been together more than 5 years, and have learned a lot about how to work through our troubles, though of course I don't pretend we have everything worked out and our life will be perfect in every way.

All that said, I believe others have the right to disagree and sign pre-nups if they feel they need them.


----------



## MidAtlanticXCer (May 21, 2004)

*ditto*



alaskarider said:


> In my opinion, divorce is way too easy in this country (probably partly because way too many people get married before they really should), and having a pre-nup just makes it easier....
> All that said, I believe others have the right to disagree and sign pre-nups if they feel they need them.


Whaddya know, that thought pretty much informs how I feel about pre-nups, but until you put it into words, I didn't realize it. Sort of like how having a personal SAG vehicle on a bad road ride makes it much more likely you'll bail. I mean, uh, not that I did that or anything!

Clearly family businesses and second marriages with existing children fall into another category. I think we are really talking about 1st marriage with no family fortune issues.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*I say no...*



Hello Kitty said:


> I just found out a friend of mine had his wife sign a pre-nup. And she did it. WTF?!
> 
> Would you sign one? Me, no 'effin way. I figure any guy who's proposing who is planning his out from the get-go, I'd better off parting ways with right from the start. I mean, let's just cut to the chase, end it right at the beginning, and save ourselves a whole lot of time and paperwork.


You can't be married halfway, IMHO. 'Holding back' is bad for nups.


----------



## Dude (Jan 12, 2004)

*In the end*

It's cheaper too keep them... 

-Dude


----------



## Christine (Feb 11, 2004)

It's easy to say "it's not romantic," etc. BUT, marriage itself isn't romantic! Sure, you and your spouse can have romantic moments- a date with your spouse is romantic, but it's still a legal arrangement.

I do think that men have it easier- they can still date and have kids until they die; women have a much harder time starting over from scratch. It's a little too easy for a man to walk away from his responsibilities and a pre-nup might make that a little easier.....that's my main concern, although again, each one is different, and I wouldn't want him walking away with whatever I've got.


----------



## crashedandburned (Jan 9, 2004)

Christine said:


> It's a little too easy for a man to walk away from his responsibilities and a pre-nup might make that a little easier.....that's my main concern, although again, each one is different, and I wouldn't want him walking away with whatever I've got.


While I can understand your concerns about a guy walking away from his family like that I don't think the courts would let him even w/ a pre-nup. My main concern w/ a pre-nup is covering my own a$$. My GF makes around $15,000 to $20,000/yr. I make MUCH more than that. Who has more to loose here? And lets face it, it's a well known fact that the courts favors women in divorce situations. I basically want one between my GF and I, if we get married, that basically says that in the event of divorce we leave w/ what we came into the marriage with. Assets accumulated during the marriage will be split. If we have kids, it will be joint custody. Seems fair to me.


----------



## Drewdane (Dec 19, 2003)

kept man said:


> Drew, I tend to be a pretty good judge of character,


My friend, unfortunately, was not. Having been burned multiple times, he had some pretty serious "emotional armouring" going on...


----------



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

FreeRangeChicken said:


> Nothing says "I Love You" like a pre-nup.
> 
> I have a pretty long winded answer to this which basically amounts to "my emotional side says pre-nups suck and I would be offended to be asked to sign one, but my intellectual side can definitely see the need in some cases."
> 
> ...


Is this a common thing? Maybe it's because I'm from the other side of the pond, but I'd never heard of such a thing until I read this thread. I think I'd be mortally offended if my hubby had asked me to sign something like this.

Personally I think the concept of marriage is kinda silly (yes, I am married myself). I like the romantic bit, it's the legal bit that bothers me. First off, I find it quite ridiculous that there are so many financial incentives to get married. I worked as a tax preparer this past tax season, and the tax breaks that married people get are huge when compared to everyone else... and I don't get it. Why should a little bit of paper save you $1000s every year? It doesn't make any sense.

I also find the whole thing about gay marriage ridiculous... why on earth should two people who love each other not be allowed to marry? Once again, it doesn't make sense (and smacks of hypocrisy).

So why did I get married? 'Cause good ol' Uncle Sam won't let a foreigner stay with their loved one otherwise  . We probably would have got married eventually anyway, for the romance of it all, but not so soon had the INS not been breathing down our necks. I just feel sorry for any gay person who happens to be in love with someone from another country... if they can't get married in order to do the paperwork then they can never be together in the US 

- Jen.


----------



## LJintheUK (Jul 21, 2004)

Christine said:


> I do think that men have it easier- they can still date and have kids until they die; women have a much harder time starting over from scratch. It's a little too easy for a man to walk away from his responsibilities and a pre-nup might make that a little easier.....that's my main concern, although again, each one is different, and I wouldn't want him walking away with whatever I've got.


You are assuming that the pre nup favours the man. 
The majority of people getting married think it will last forever. In fifty percent of cases they are wrong.
I'd sign a pre nup, as long as it stipulates that I get to keep my bikes and my cat, don't care about much else.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

Mary Ann said:


> But I can certainly see the need in certain cases, especially 2nd marriages. For example, if my dad were to marry his girlfriend (they're both widowed with separate households and families), I would not expect them to combine their assets. Her kids should get her things and we would get our dad's. But this is moot since Dad says they'll never even live together, let alone get married! ;-) Anyway it works for them, so more power to them.


Excellent point. I agree.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

Drewdane said:


> It's a tough question. If your friend is a pimply-faced geek who never had a date, much less lost his virginity, until he came into a big ol' buttload o' cash, I wouldn't blame him for wanting to protect himself from potential gold-diggers (same goes for his female counterparts, BTW). If he's a relatively normal, decent guy with a relatively normal, decent dating/sex life, a prenup may be a little over the top. You think Melinda (Melissa? Whatever.) Gates didn't have a squad of lawyers crawl all over her before Bill walked her down the aisle?
> 
> How long were they dating? If they met last week at the casino where she threw herself at him after watching him lose $20K at blackjack without blinking an eye, *prenup all the way, bay-bee*! If they've been together for years, and she stood by him through thick and thin while he patiently built his empire from scratch, well, maybe a prenup's a little much.
> 
> As in most of life's little situations, it all depends.


I don't agree, Drew. And find the details to be irrelevant. IMMEO, if there's any question in your mind about any of those things, and if you haven't dated long enough to have certainty in your own mind about the person to whom you're committing your life, you shouldn't be getting married in the first place.

In the end, any man (or woman) who's more interested in keeping their stuff, than keeping their spouse, isn't fit to marry. At least not fit to marry me.

I cannot believe the poll results. WTF?


----------



## kept man (Jan 13, 2004)

Ah, Kitty. Heaven forbid there be any other way to interpret prenups than yours, eh?


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

FreeRangeChicken said:


> Oh wait, silly me, this isn't an issue because the _institution of marriage_ is being "protected" from _them._ (sorry, probably belongs in the political forum, but its pretty much impossible to get a rational discussion going over there these days)


Preach it, brutha. It's impossible to hang out over there anymore. My God! I get a headache just reading the thread titles lately.

As for gay couples, if they're legal allowed to marry I imagine they'd be entertaining prenups as well. I'm not sure what the difference would be, but am damn sure Elton John may want to get a good one drawn up.



frc said:


> I have a pretty long winded answer to this which basically amounts to "my emotional side says pre-nups suck and I would be offended to be asked to sign one, but my intellectual side can definitely see the need in some cases."


I hadn't read Kept's response, or considered second marriages before I rolled my eyes about the poll results. I agree, there may be some unique circumstances where they may make sense (and knowing how just how wonderful a peson Keptman is, I can't imagine the rule being broken to marry him would be a bad idea). But in general, I agree with what others have stated more eloquently than myself, that most people who draw them up have their heads and hearts in the wrong places to be able to create a happy and life-long marriage. So again, I say, way bother?

In this case, the guy is fairly good looking. And bright. Independently wealthy. But there's something really super annoying about him that's hard to put your finger on. Lemme see ... he minces words murderously. He's shyly arrogant. Basically, he's a know-it-all who wants you to know he knows it all; but is also very insecure and needs you to like him. Bad combination. Usually this amounts to him spending hours baby-stepping you through his brilliance, smiling and nodding, and thinking you're oblivious to how condescending he's being. When you tell him he's a tool, he gets really hurt and starts back at the beginning.

I can tell, he irritates her to no end too.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

kept man said:


> Ah, Kitty. Heaven forbid there be any other way to interpret prenups than yours, eh?


Patience, dear. BTW, I didn't know you were rich. Next time, you're buying lunch.


----------



## kept man (Jan 13, 2004)

I love you too, and your romantic spirit most of all. I do admire that you have walked what you talk with the handsome M. Kitty. We must lunch again sometime. Surely there are drug conferences in Toronto? 

LOL! So your friend has decided to marry the antiChrist, is what you're saying? Have her throw an exorcism into the prenup, sprinkly him with holy water, and see if he signs it then ...

But trust me on this ... if the dude really is the slightest bit clever, and did the slightest bit of research, there are far far worse ways to screw people over and protect their assets than with a prenup. Honestly. 

He could set up a dummy corporation, sell it all of his assets, and then buy them back/have the corporation hold it in trust for him, under stipulations that it actually belongs to the corporation, and not to him ... there is actually minimal legal wrangling involved in keeping such funds from being considered in the case of a divorce settlement. That's not the best explanation, but trust me, it can work ... there are some truly lousy, selfish people in the world who have no right marrying anyone, I entirely agree ...

PS - absolutely I will pick up the next tab. Although to be clear, until one of my parents dies, I'm rich-in-waiting.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

Oh, btw, a public THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU, to freerangechicken for making me this most excellent animated avatar.    It officially made my week.


----------



## MrEconomics (Aug 23, 2004)

My wife and I have a prenup. It was a provision of our family trusts. Our families wanted to protect what they gave us. Didn't even think twice about it. In the event of a divorce, personal assets cannot be included in the settlement. Any significant purchases we make, we will identify who gets it. I'm talking $10,000 or more. I bought her a Lexus SUV for her Birthday so I let her take it. Just stuff like that. The small stuff I don't care about and would most likely just walk away from. Why would I want anything from a broken marriage?

I know it sounds ridiculous, but 50% of all marriages end in a divorce. We confronted the reality and hedged appropriately. Plus, in the event of a divorces, emotions go crazy and decisions made on ANYemotion are not good.

Some say we planned for the worse instead of focusing on the future. We see it as insurance. We have insurance on our house, but live perfectly happy in it. 

Thats my opinion and I understand completely why people woudl not agree and would prefer not to do it. Everybody has different views.

PS. She also kept her last name.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

Guppie58 said:


> PS. She also kept her last name.


Oh ... don't even get me started ...


----------



## kept man (Jan 13, 2004)

... no, c'mon, start ... like you said, Socio-Political is dying a slow and terrible death at the moment ... I need some good, quality ranting ...


----------



## horefaen (Jul 22, 2005)

So Hello Kitty won't sign a preenup.. what a pity.. guess I won't marry you then.. Oh, guess I wouldn't wanna anyway, you freak.

Interesting how you can browse through a forum like this searching for pros and cons to preenups, or you could just take the written stuff as an indication of the morale of the contributors. And that morale is fukkin absent. It makes me depressed to read this, but such is life.. american women, all fukkin GOLDDIGGERS.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

kept man said:


> ... no, c'mon, start ... like you said, Socio-Political is dying a slow and terrible death at the moment ... I need some good, quality ranting ...


LOL! OK, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am biased seeing as though my maiden name has 13 (count 'em) THIRTEEN frickin' letters, but in a nutshell? Come the fock on.

The only thing worse than a wife keeping her maiden name is a wife hyphenating her maiden name. The only thing worse than a wife hyphenating her maiden name, is when her husband (in a sign of emasculated solidarity worthy of violent and projectile vomiting) hyphenates his name _too _ (I'm not kidding, I know a couple, and they're the "Scott-Wrights")! In the wise words of a long-forgotten infomercial, stop the insanity!

It's a stupid name. Pick one. Join. Bond. Love each other. Create your family. What, all the divisions between your prior assets, bank accounts, and work schedules aren't enough? You have to throw your GD _name _ into the mix? Why the hell get married at all?! Again, I ask, what's the point?

(happy, Kept?)


----------



## kept man (Jan 13, 2004)

Much better.

I personally didn't care which name Mrs. Kept went with, so long as there was only one. She went with mine. 

Had she already gotten far enough in her masters and phD, and published any papers, I would have completely understood if she'd kept hers ... I mean, just from a practical stand point, it would have made her professional life much easier ... apparently a number of women in these fields run into issues changing their names - get accused of plagiarizing their own work, etc. Silly, but true. My sister is keeping her name for this reason.


----------



## FreeRangeChicken (Jan 13, 2004)

mahgnillig said:


> ...
> I also find the whole thing about gay marriage ridiculous... why on earth should two people who love each other not be allowed to marry? Once again, it doesn't make sense (and smacks of hypocrisy).
> .....
> 
> - Jen.


Apparently, because _"God don't like [email protected]"_ and the US being the secular State that it is, it is perfectly natural that laws governing such things should reflect the beliefs of a conservative religious sect rather than being religiously neutral.


----------



## FreeRangeChicken (Jan 13, 2004)

Hello Kitty said:


> Preach it, brutha. It's impossible to hang out over there anymore. My God! I get a headache just reading the thread titles lately. ....


I'm waiting for the Apocalypse so life can start anew over there. 



> Oh, btw, a public THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU, to freerangechicken for making me this most excellent animated avatar. It officially made my week.


I was inspired while watching Hell's Kitchen on Fox and seeing the flaming "HK". 

My Chef Ramsey imitation: This risotto looks like dog food. Bring me beautiful risotto.... blah, blah, blah.... stupid.... blah, blah, blah..... idiot.... blah, blah, blah.....


----------



## Dude (Jan 12, 2004)

Hello Kitty said:


> The only thing worse than a wife keeping her maiden name is a wife hyphenating her maiden name. The only thing worse than a wife hyphenating her maiden name, is when her husband (in a sign of emasculated solidarity worthy of violent and projectile vomiting) hyphenates his name _too _ (I'm not kidding, I know a couple, and they're the "Scott-Wrights")! In the wise words of a long-forgotten infomercial, stop the insanity!


I couldn't agree more... Can someone shed some light on this subject... My wife took my name but back then it wasn't really an issue...


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Hello Kitty said:


> LOL! OK, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am biased seeing as though my maiden name has 13 (count 'em) THIRTEEN frickin' letters, but in a nutshell? Come the fock on.
> 
> The only thing worse than a wife keeping her maiden name is a wife hyphenating her maiden name. The only thing worse than a wife hyphenating her maiden name, is when her husband (in a sign of emasculated solidarity worthy of violent and projectile vomiting) hyphenates his name _too _ (I'm not kidding, I know a couple, and they're the "Scott-Wrights")! In the wise words of a long-forgotten infomercial, stop the insanity!
> 
> ...


the only thing worse than a hyphenated name is a preschooler that can barely write their own name stuggling with a hyphenated last name.

~f.


----------



## Dan'ger (Aug 26, 2004)

People have pre-nup agreements for a variety of reasons. There's no way to tell for sure whether a marriage is going to last or not unless both parties work really hard to keep it together.

Think of how many marriages go for 20 years before something goes bad and on the other side, think of how many bad relationships end up in marriage for the psychological reason of getting a divorce.

I'm not saying that pre-nups are a good idea for all marriages. The discussion of an agreement during the time between engagement and marriage might be enough to pressure the relationship into dissolution - which would be a good thing in a case where the relationship isn't strong enough to widthstand small disagreements.

If the assumption is that you will never have to revert to using it, it might make a marriage stronger.

I'm on my second marriage - hopefully, my last and forever! We don't have a pre-nup. We were also together for almost 5 years before we got married - dating, living together, etc. We got to know each other well enough during that time. It is what I would recommend for anyone without religious convictions against it.

I can't say that about my first. I also can't say that a pre-nup would have helped either one of us 'cause we were poor after the fighting and lawyers' fees.

-

I also know a couple that the husband took the wife's name hyphenated and now they're divorced. Since he's a lawyer and a partner of a firm, he now has to keep the name as it's on the letterhead, etc. Suffice it to say, she's a partner now, too!


----------



## Sp*rky (Jul 13, 2005)

I know a couple, and I often look at the guy and think to myself, "My god, you're an idiot! Why didn't you get a pre-nup". _BUT,_ this leads me back to what I thought before they got married, "My god, you'e an idiot. You have no business being married". So yes, one sort of precludes the other. Baring a 'Bill Gates" type situation, I personally would not have one.


----------



## RainbowRider (Jul 23, 2005)

Hello Kitty said:


> Well in this case he made a ton of money in telecommunications before meeting her. But still, the whole idea that _"I'll marry you *if * I can keep my stuff after we divorce,"_ is flawed thinking all the way around. Why bother?
> 
> You know what? Sometimes, perhaps often times, money is a curse.


100% on your side, signing a pre-nup is a bad omen. If you choose to sign one, you could just forget about getting married altogether. For the same reason, I choose not to wear a helmet when riding on my downhill bike- it is not like I plan to crash so wearing a lid would grant me bad luck. I also never buckle up while driving, and I have never had a single accident in my entire life. In fact, pre-nups are probably only for those scared to death by a possible breakup, out of no good reason other than watching Oprah and cheap soap series.


----------



## Sp*rky (Jul 13, 2005)

Dan'ger said:


> I'm on my second marriage - hopefully, my last and forever! We don't have a pre-nup. We were also together for almost 5 years before we got married - dating, living together, etc. We got to know each other well enough during that time. It is what I would recommend for anyone without religious convictions against it.


Religion isn't the only reason _not_ to live togeather. Personally I feel it's an awful lot of freedom to give up without any commitment, and I don't feel that anything short of a ring and a wedding date counts as a solid commitment. Until you have at least that (and of course everything leading up to it), everything else is just talk.

Plus I think it can make people less objective. One may start to put up with behavior or compromising their values in ways they never would have before. But now they're over invested in this relationship and they _need_ the relationship to work and can no longer see whether or not they should really even be in it. But that's just my personal experience.

Though, I do have married friends I love dearly that did it the other way, and they seem to have a very healthy relationship. They are both my friends, I love them equally, and I think they are going to be just fine, all the statistics asside.


----------



## zenmonkey (Nov 21, 2004)

Hello Kitty said:


> Preach it, brutha. It's impossible to hang out over there anymore. My God! I get a headache just reading the thread titles lately.
> 
> I can tell, he irritates her to no end too.


I heartily agree with HKitty, thinking about money and who has what, who keeps what is certainly not the way to enter a relation. It creates a supplementary necessity for trust and negotiation. 14 yrs ago, when I was married, we both actually had not given it a thought upto the day of marriage. We only thought about it when the city mayor asked us, right before the marriage. Naive? Probably, but it has luckily never been an issue.

But I guess it is an attitude in life, both of us raised without money issues - not a family name like Kept, but let's say we where both raised with opportunities and adventures, while also required to learn value/cost. Lots of semi-horrid jobs along the way, for me. Today, I still tend to over spend but *usually* on others. And I accumulate passions (and the junk that goes along). Just doesn't matter, in the end, it's not who has the most toys that win but who has shared the most toys.

Money, sex and lex are the three things that will kill a relation.

So if this guy irritates your friend to no end how is that going to work? Never mind the money, here its about lex.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

Sp*rky said:


> Plus I think it can make people less objective. One may start to put up with behavior or compromising their values in ways they never would have before. But now they're over invested in this relationship and they _need_ the relationship to work and can no longer see whether or not they should really even be in it. But that's just my personal experience.


So very true. It's not a moral issue as to why people (imo) shouldn't live together before marriage, it's simply extremely unwise for the reasons you stated. And for all intents and purposes (newsflash!) you _are _ married; not legally of course, but notably to a person about whom you're not entirely sure, to whom you're not completely committed. And so are they!

People say they want to do it to "test the waters," but that's not true. They do it to save the rent and buy more crap. And the money they save by doing so? Doesn't come cheap.

And yes, I do speak from experience.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

zenmonkey said:


> So if this guy irritates your friend to no end how is that going to work? Never mind the money, here its about lex.


And a kid she desperately wants, and is on the way. I think she married because she felt this was her last opportunity to get that life. I doubt it will last, but that would only put them in the majority, so who's to judge?


----------



## zenmonkey (Nov 21, 2004)

Hello Kitty said:


> People say they want to do it to "test the waters," but that's not true. They do it to save the rent and buy more crap. And the money they save by doing so? Doesn't come cheap.
> 
> And yes, I do speak from experience.


We didn't say anything, just sort of started moving in together (15 days after we met or so) as she had roommates and I lived alone in a big empty house in the woods. First her books, then some junk in the garage, then everything...

BTW, she kept her name publicly and hyphened mine on, as she was a published author-researcher but legally only has mine and the girls only have mine... The funny thing is that my legal name in France also includes my mother's maiden name as it was on my passport. Mrs ZM hates getting admin papers calling her Mrs Monkey-Monkey'sMomma 

She prefers Mrs Medusa-Monkey


----------



## Mother Medusa (Jun 25, 2005)

You talk too much


----------



## MrEconomics (Aug 23, 2004)

Married is based on love, friendship, communication and fun. Prenups, last names, etc, have no affect on a marriage. The point is to spend your life with somebody, the rest is just insignificant details.


----------



## Dan'ger (Aug 26, 2004)

Hello Kitty said:


> So very true. It's not a moral issue as to why people (imo) shouldn't live together before marriage, it's simply extremely unwise for the reasons you stated. And for all intents and purposes (newsflash!) you _are _married; not legally of course, but notably to a person about whom you're not entirely sure, to whom you're not completely committed. And so are they!


"Testing the waters" can be performed in a large number of ways. I think that dating a person is testing the waters in the sense of putting in a toe to see if they're warm enough to go deeper. In that sense, living with someone first can be the waist-deep, "yeah, it's warm enough to swim" or "it's warm 'cause someone peed in it" duration.

It's not that different from taking a 2-week vacation while co-habitating in hotel rooms or whatever. I personally think that if you want to test a relationship, take a long-distance driving/camping trip with someone. If spending 4-5 hours at a shot in a small enclosed space like a car doesn't tell you enough about the other person, living together never will.

Honestly, I think that once we moved in together we were on the marriage track, we just needed to get some of the complicated details worked out like: where she would go to grad school, when and where I could get a new job and relocate to where she was going to grad school, making sure my kids from the previous marriage were not going to cause undue relationship stresses or become alienated, selling my condo, etc. etc.

Once that was all done, I sat down and had a long conversation with her parents, my parents, "got permission", bought a ring and proposed - all of this after we had lived together off and on for 3+ years. We'll be married for 6 in August - I'll let you know in 20 if it worked out.


----------



## incisorette (Jul 23, 2005)

*yup*



Impy said:


> You know what, if I got married again, I'd probably draw up the pre-nup myself. Honest. I also would never consider marrying a guy without knowing his credit history.


I agree with Impy, I am an independent businesswoman, and when you are the driver of your own life, you attract hangers-on who suck your energy without adding to it, they think they will absorb your proactivity by osmosis, and it never works like that...
The chance of finding a nice,sweet guy (or gal!) who shares your hive mind or mindset and has no problems is so tiny that a prenup might actually add some stability/protection.
I have been around enough and I am not a romantic anymore.
Don't get screwed, ladies, you might think it detracts from the couple vibe or something but in my experience it is just a trampoline at the ground level when you're jumping out of a burning building... ;P


----------



## verslowrdr (Mar 22, 2004)

Well, thank goodness it was pretty cut and dried in our case. When we got married, we were both pretty well broke when made vows before God to each other that included "for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sickness and in health, 'till death do us part." 

Since then we've had poorer, we've had financially mediocre, we're still waiting for the 'richer' part, some days have been WAY better than my most fantastic dreams, some days MUCH worse than the worst nightmare I could have envisioned, sometimes we've been sick (sometimes both sick at once- how fun is that), sometimes healthy... and these days we're just deeply thankful when the bills are paid, the fridge is full, there's a little leftover building slowly in the bank accounts, we're both working steadily, the cars are running fine, and the phone isn't ringing at 3AM. 

When I said I would love and honor and take care of my husband I really meant it. We just celebrated our 11th anniversary, and I'm so infinately far in over any money we've somehow scraped together... I've bled every drop of my LIFE into this marriage, and there's no prenup on the planet that could EVER get that back.

And I wouldn't have it any other way. Why? Part of the magic of marriage is the extreme level of vulnerability surrendered to this ONE other person. It takes extrordinary strength and effort to develop, but the relationship that's forged from successfully navigating life's fires together is truely remarkable.


----------



## Rampage (Apr 26, 2005)

*If beauty is in the eye of the beholder...*

then the context of one's life is definitely in the ear of the listener. Sheesh!! I hear stories all the time about marriage and how good/bad they are. Nothing like being a body guard for strippers to hear all the woes of men. Problem is: too many people are inflexible!! Do I believe in Pre Nups?! No!! It's only true value comes when the significant other cannot find a lawyer to prove any monetary value gained during marriage. Yes, there is money before you get married, but what happens when you're married?! Did you suddenly stop making money?! But then there is the half statement. Did both parties contribute half of the whole value of your status when you got married?! Probably not. Marriage is wonderful, divorce is not. I suppose that's why old time courtships used to last so long. By the time you were ready to get married, you knew a great deal about that person. And usually you could tell if there was something that you would not be able to live with. Too many people get married way too early. I guess it comes from settling for whomever, instead of finding Mr. or Ms. Right. I'm too old to be alone... blah blah blah. If you know what you want, you're usually better at finding it. If you're looking for Mr or Ms Right, don't settle for Mr or Ms Right-Now. I think Pre-Nups are a short cut to marriage. Instead of getting to know them, just get a PN and figure the rest out later, right?! Here's another funny about PNs, wealth is only one of five main reasons people get them.


----------



## amg (Nov 8, 2004)

AK Ken said:


> You say that, but I was the first to cast a vote saying I would sign...hmmm...in any case, depending on the state, the pre-nupt may be superceded by state community property statutes anyway. You can't legally agree to something that is illegal.
> 
> Ken


Sorry, I'm not very good at e-sarcasm yet.

In any case, I'm not sure what the deal is with pre-nups is here in Canada.

A more serious answer: Whether or not I would sign one, if my hypothetical fiance asked, would depend on the reason for signing one (ie, family business as previously mentioned) and how it was approached - ie, are they acting like they think I'm after their money, or is it to satisfy lawyers and evil in-laws that may think that I'm after the money even if the aforementioned fiance doesn't?

Also, the content. Suppose we got to the point where I've agreed to sign one. What the heck is in those things anyways? Are they all or nothing? Would I have any say in the content? What if I moved to the other side of the country and gave up a flourishing career to be with this man...could I look at the agreement and say, hey dude, I think that after I gave up my high powered job and spent 10 years of my life with you only to catch you sleeping around with your secretary, I should get more than that?

Really, it's hard to say for sure without being in that position. A lot would depend on who this man was that I was interested in marrying.


----------



## zenmonkey (Nov 21, 2004)

Here is an idea. An impromptu toast at my wedding was from an uncle from Australia. He started off about all the people there from all over the world, lasted about 10 min. but the basic idea was not only do two people marry each other but also each person present has a community agreement to support the couple through all sort of difficulties - for the couple and the children to come. Staying together for the good reasons and working things out is easier if those around you help and support.

The community bond and how you support the couple also counts - both ways.


----------



## MrEconomics (Aug 23, 2004)

Allot of you are against pre-nups but I would be interested in how many of you actually know what they are. Other than the what you see in movies, etc. How many have sat down with an attorney and discussed what a pre-nup is really all about? 

Until you take the time to really understand prenups, your basing your judgement on stereotypes. People do that allot with religion or politics. Just trash it but have never really understood both sides of the story. 

Anybody take "debate" classes in College or Law School? Remember what they always said? Know more about your opponents position than your own. 

Lets say some of you are entreprenuers. You build a significant networth and want to share with your kids so you build a trust. Lets say each kid gets $3MM. Your child gets married. Would you put language in the trust that protects that money from your kids spouse or would you be okay with him/her getting half in the event of a divorce. 

How about if the family has third or fourth generation money. Would you be okay giving half of that to a spouse? This was the case with my wife and I. NO Way was either family going to let their money be at risk. 

Pre nups are not always about the quick and easy divorce. They are also about protecting assets. Assets that originated outside of the marriage. Prenups set aside those big assets so during a divorce you can squabble about who gets the dishes or stupid crap like that.


----------



## MtbGirl32 (Jul 15, 2004)

*Most definitely*

If I ever go married again I would want one drawn up, simply because I have substantial investments. At this point I don't have to worry about my retirement, and I just can't risk someone taking that away from me.

My current BF knows how I feel about this, and while he is a great guy and things are going smoothly now, who knows what the future holds for us. Better to be safe than sorry.


----------



## MidAtlanticXCer (May 21, 2004)

*light shed*



Dude said:


> I couldn't agree more... Can someone shed some light on this subject... My wife took my name but back then it wasn't really an issue...


It is an issue to me because of expectations. If there were no societal expectations that a woman would have to give up her name when she got married, then hey, free choice, no issue, go with the name that is cooler (or shorter, eh HK?). Or make your own new name, including a hyphenated one. 
Me, I'm stubborn. You tell me what to do and if I don't see the logic, I'm digging in. So, since everyone applied pressure, made assumptions and just generally decided that they got to have an opinion about what MY frickin' name was (!!!!), taking my husband's name just wasn't even going to be considered. 
Mind, this was 13 or so years ago. People have chilled out a lot on this issue since then, so maybe it doesn't get folks as fired up and pushy as it used to. Now, we did plan to hyphenate so as to have a family name, a concept I totally get and approve of (again, not that it's any of my bidness anyway what someone else's name is), but we were too lazy to do the paperwork and get new id. Heh. Truth comes out.


----------



## MidAtlanticXCer (May 21, 2004)

*Aw shucks*



Guppie58 said:


> Married is based on love, friendship, communication and fun. Prenups, last names, etc, have no affect on a marriage. The point is to spend your life with somebody, the rest is just insignificant details.


That's just too true, Guppie. And darned sweet.


----------



## MtbGirl32 (Jul 15, 2004)

Guppie58 said:


> Pre nups are not always about the quick and easy divorce. They are also about protecting assets. Assets that originated outside of the marriage. Prenups set aside those big assets so during a divorce you can squabble about who gets the dishes or stupid crap like that.


I'm not against them, and I agree that pre-nups are not always about a quick & easy divorce but more about protecting assets.

Hmm... somehow I posted twice, and can't delete this second post...  So I'll edit... I've been married before, changed my name to his because I'm traditional. When I divorced I kept my married name to keep things easier for my son - just easier if we both have the same last name - and because it's just too much trouble going through all the paperwork!!! 

Now, if my BF & I were to get married I'd probably change my name to his because I have no loyalty to my ex-husband's last name and, again, because I'm traditional.


----------



## alaskarider (Aug 31, 2004)

*plagarizing your own work?*



> apparently a number of women in these fields run into issues changing their names - get accused of plagiarizing their own work, etc.


Yikes! My fiance and I haven't yet agreed whether I'll take his name or not (I'm indecisive but leaning towards no), but, given that I've already published research under my maiden name, I've pretty well decided to continue publishing under my maiden name regardless of my legal name. I figured it would help prevent confusion in my research field. I hadn't even thought of this possibility, though!


----------



## kept man (Jan 13, 2004)

Alaskarider, I wouldn't have thought it an issue either, but it happened to a researcher Mrs. Kept did some work with ... it didn't cause any serious or permanent damage to her reputation, but the amount of time/frustration that went into it didn't make it something to laugh about, either.


----------



## Dan'ger (Aug 26, 2004)

_...hmmm - started rambling and forgot my point - oh, yeah, now I remember..._

We don't have a pre-nup and I don't think either one of us will think that we ever needed one. But, neither one of us had assets in any life-changing amount when we started. If either one of us did, we might have felt differently.


----------



## tlg (May 21, 2004)

I don't care what anyone says about "knowing your partner before marrying them" or "not having faith and trust?" In the grand scheme of things, that's phooey. 

You can totally know and have 100% faith and trust in your partner. But no one can predict the future. You can't prevent your partner from changing. Becomming a differnt person. Having a mid life crissis. Etc. 

I see nothing wrong with having a prenup. Assuming that both are treated fairly in the outcome.


----------



## Dude (Jan 12, 2004)

MidAtlanticXCer said:


> Now, we did plan to hyphenate so as to have a family name, a concept I totally get and approve of (again, not that it's any of my bidness anyway what someone else's name is), but we were too lazy to do the paperwork and get new id. Heh. Truth comes out.


Ok so this falls into the realm of this whole PN... A marriage is a union between two people with like minded ideas, values and common goals " that is summarized ". Outside of what KeptMan stated, why is a PN a good idea and why is it a bad idea? With things of this nature, like not taking on a last name you are setting poor examples and un-tieing the family unity. We as adults have to step back and put our selfish gains aside. A family name is one that carries heritage, has a legacy and at some point should be able to be documented. My wife and I are from very different nationalities but we believe strongly that as a COUPLE we will raise our family under one name and build upon it.

Marriage is about teamwork, and when you are a team you don't take on different names under that team name. I have never understood this concept in todays world. It just doesn't make sense too me. If you want to make a difference in life make it by making something work for all to rejoice in your work.

Marriage is something that can be one of the best things in life but it doesn't come without very very hard work, from all parties that touch it. This goes for family, friends, children, etc etc....

If what you are saying rings true about hyphenating your name, then you shouldn't have a problem with signing a PN.. and if you do have a problem with it, then shame on you because that just being a hypocrite.

-Dude


----------



## MidAtlanticXCer (May 21, 2004)

*don't get it*

Dude, 
I am missing your point. Really and truly not getting it. Could you clarify? You do seem pretty passionate about it, so apparently I've hit a sore spot? I wasn't intending to be controversial.

I understand pre-nups for family asset protection (whether corporate or second-marriage), I understand having a family name for the raising of children family-unit thing, but I do not at all get what correlation you see between the two. One is about (essentially) hard cash, one is about ethereal things like "belonging" and identity. At least in my estimation.

That's why when it came down to it, we had no real heart-burn about having different names. We know we're hitched, everyone who knows us knows we're hitched, so a group identity was a nice to have, not a need to have. Works for us. Also seems to be very common among other folks our age who also have graduate degrees - maybe after you publish under your birth name you get that much more attached to it.


----------



## alaskarider (Aug 31, 2004)

I agree with MidAtlanticXCer...I'm totally confused, Dude. Can you clarify?

On top of that, I am interested whether you would have been willing to take your wife's last name if there were some reason to do so, rather than vice versa. What if, for example, you were from a family of boys (so your family name would be passed along to the next generation) and your wife was the sole child in a heritage-rich family...would that deserve preservation? Or what if your wife was very accomplished professionally and changing her name would set her back, but your name didn't matter in your profession?

Also, there are cultures out there today where married couples both keep their birth names as a matter of course. I'm not sure how the divorce rates there compare to those in the US, though, so I can't say whether marriages are stronger or weaker as a result.


----------



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

On the name thing...

I didn't change my name when I got married. My hubby has often talked about changing his name (before we even met), because his is one of those names that would be perfectly at home in one of Bart Simpson's crank calls. We left it kinda open-ended, so that he'd have the option to change his name to mine if he wanted, but we'll have definitely decided on one or the other by the time we have kids. We're leaning towards both taking my name, but it's a bit of a pain in the arse with all the paperwork, which is mainly the reason we haven't done it yet.

Personally I don't see the problem with a woman not taking her husband's name (we have two sets of close friends that didn't either)... it's another of those marriage 'traditions' that were understandable back in the day, but don't necessarily make sense any more. What matters is that the people involved love each other... the name is irrelevant.

- Jen.


----------



## Dude (Jan 12, 2004)

MidAtlanticXCer said:


> Dude,
> I am missing your point. Really and truly not getting it. Could you clarify? You do seem pretty passionate about it, so apparently I've hit a sore spot? I wasn't intending to be controversial.
> 
> I understand pre-nups for family asset protection (whether corporate or second-marriage), I understand having a family name for the raising of children family-unit thing, but I do not at all get what correlation you see between the two. One is about (essentially) hard cash, one is about ethereal things like "belonging" and identity. At least in my estimation.
> ...


Ok; I wrote this long reply but I have chosen to not post it because after reading it I came to the conclusion that my point held very little water in this sense.

A PN is good for family/business assets a person that has not had a hand in it should not be entitled to it but if after the marriage some of the assets are used to build upon the future then one is entitled to it.

Now as for the hyphenated name; I have concluded that in my world it comes down to a respect issue. Since we are both entering into a contract for life why shouldn't we both carry on the same name?

The correlation is this: They both have there place in business and in business only. The topic of this thread was would you sign a PN? Then it swerved into hyphenated names. Outside of the business need for the PN or the publication what is the need in the union of marriage?

-Dude


----------



## MidAtlanticXCer (May 21, 2004)

*thanks for responding*



Dude said:


> A PN is good for family/business assets a person that has not had a hand in it should not be entitled to it but if after the marriage some of the assets are used to build upon the future then one is entitled to it.


Totally agree.



Dude said:


> Now as for the hyphenated name; I have concluded that in my world it comes down to a respect issue. Since we are both entering into a contract for life why shouldn't we both carry on the same name?


Fair enough. Not my stance, but then, you lucky man you, you didn't have to marry me!


----------



## Dude (Jan 12, 2004)

*Thank you Ladies*

I wanted to say thank you for letting me off easy...... After this little enlightenment I have begun to see things differently.

Alaskarider: You know, I have never thought of that way and I see your point .

Mahgnillig: It is a tradition that had merit why back then and not so much now.. As I was in the heated battle of making my point I realized my way of thinking only put me in a corner.

MidAtlanticXCer: Thank you for making me take a look at something different. I am sure you a nice person, well at least I am going to think that..

I just hope my kids never ask me for my input or should that be output? It is a tradition in our lineage. When do we have the right of passage to stop one and start another?

-Dude


----------



## alaskarider (Aug 31, 2004)

*No, thank you...*



> After this little enlightenment I have begun to see things differently.


...for having the courage to let us know that our remarks made you think. Even if we don't all end up agreeing in the end, I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to admit that they are reconsidering their own opionions in light of new arguments.

After all, if the questions of whether or not to get a pre-nup, change one's name, or, most importantly, which bike to buy*? were easy, we wouldn't need to debate them with complete strangers on the internet!

*I'm going to have to go with my Titus on that one, but to each her (his) own.


----------



## FreeRangeChicken (Jan 13, 2004)

Holy carp! I feel a group hug coming on. 

Seriously, I wish people in the political forum could have discussions like this.... agreeing, disagreeing, agreeing to disagree, discussion of ideas and viewpoints without personal attacks. It's like there's actually a few adults around here.

You people have renewed my hope for humanity. The political forum has basically degenerated into an internet version of the Jerry Springer show.


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

Guppie58 said:


> Marriage is based on love, friendship, communication and fun. Prenups, last names, etc, have no affect on a marriage. The point is to spend your life with somebody, the rest is just insignificant details.


 Well put. Succint and clear.

I'll chime in here - as a married guy whose wife felt that the name her family gave her was the one she ought to have, she kept her name, I kept mine. Seems pretty simple, and why wouldn't it?

We were lucky in that we were together for 10+ years prior to getting married (been married for 7 years now). We threw a party, bought some booze & food, hired a retired judge and presto - we were married. No religion, no pre-nups, no name changing/hyphenating/phooey or bad feelings. Just a good time and the celebration of our relationship with our friends & family. Does anyone elses opinion, religion, POV, or "ways" matter to us? Nope.

To each their own.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

FreeRangeChicken said:


> You people have renewed my hope for humanity. The political forum has basically degenerated into an internet version of the Jerry Springer show.


Actually, to be precise, it's more like the Morton Downey Jr. Show being broadcast from Bizarro World.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Sabine said:


> What's a hive mind?
> 
> Sabine


I think it's a reference to Star Trek TNG and The Borg, who had a collective "hive mind"

formica 
closet sci-fi geek


----------



## Sabine (Jan 12, 2004)

incisorette said:


> I agree with Impy, I am an independent businesswoman, and when you are the driver of your own life, you attract hangers-on who suck your energy without adding to it, they think they will absorb your proactivity by osmosis, and it never works like that...
> The chance of finding a nice,sweet guy (or gal!) who shares your hive mind or mindset and has no problems is so tiny that a prenup might actually add some stability/protection.
> I have been around enough and I am not a romantic anymore.
> Don't get screwed, ladies, you might think it detracts from the couple vibe or something but in my experience it is just a trampoline at the ground level when you're jumping out of a burning building... ;P


What's a hive mind?

Sabine


----------



## kept man (Jan 13, 2004)

... it's like what the Borg had on Star Trek.


----------



## connie (Mar 16, 2004)

LJintheUK said:


> You are assuming that the pre nup favours the man.
> The majority of people getting married think it will last forever. In fifty percent of cases they are wrong.
> I'd sign a pre nup, as long as it stipulates that I get to keep my bikes and my cat, don't care about much else.


Yeah. We didn't, but I wouldn't have been opposed to it. I guess we both were in the - what are you going to take, anyway? mindset - but I think if either of us had significant or otherwise personal/family assets that could be a concern, it would make sense.

I guess I see it the same way someone earlier put it - I don't plan on getting into an accident, but I'll be wearing my seatbelt on the way home from work.


----------



## Mountaingirl1961 (Nov 16, 2004)

Hello Kitty said:


> I don't agree, Drew. And find the details to be irrelevant. IMMEO, if there's any question in your mind about any of those things, and if you haven't dated long enough to have certainty in your own mind about the person to whom you're committing your life, you shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
> 
> In the end, any man (or woman) who's more interested in keeping their stuff, than keeping their spouse, isn't fit to marry. At least not fit to marry me.
> 
> I cannot believe the poll results. WTF?


Kitty, Kitty, Kitty. Sometimes I wish it were that simple.

As the survivor of an incredibly ugly and bitter divorce, I can tell you that I WISH a pre-nup had been in place. Why? Because it would have saved a whole lot of acrimony and misunderstanding that reveberates through my life to this day.

Personal is personal. Business is business, and unfortunately there is a business aspect to both marriage and divorce. Remember, marriage was about business LONG before it was about love. It's when you lose sight of that separation that people get really hurt - and screwed.

It's an unfortunate conversation and I don't look forward to having it. But you can never tell what's going to happen. I certainly never anticipated a divorce when my X and I were married - we were the match made in heaven.


----------



## Sabine (Jan 12, 2004)

kept man said:


> ... it's like what the Borg had on Star Trek.


Yeah. But since I am not a Sci-Fi fan, that didn't help much. I pictured a giant forehead covered with a big ol neon beehive hairdo. Wikipedia helped out though. And, lo and behold, your Borg example is listed there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hive_mind

I don't think I want to share a hive mind with my guy. Thats too creepy.

Sabine


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

Mountaingirl1961 said:


> Kitty, Kitty, Kitty. Sometimes I wish it were that simple.
> 
> As the survivor of an incredibly ugly and bitter divorce, I can tell you that I WISH a pre-nup had been in place. Why? Because it would have saved a whole lot of acrimony and misunderstanding that reveberates through my life to this day.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but if he really looked like that dude in that crazy apache video I posted awhile back, you were already overlooking an obvious reason to avoid the alter altogether.  j/k ... couldn't resist.

Look, you're probably right, about marriage being a business, and about it being smart in many cases to consider a pre-nup. I just wouldn't _want _ to marry someone if I felt like I had to protect myself and my assets, or he felt he had to do so, from the get go. Stupid, yeah. Romantic, helplessly. But in the end, what you live has a helluva lot (mostly?) to do with what you _intend; _ and I would not want to commit my life, heart, and soul to someone from a state of mind bent on self-protection. Sure, I might regret it. Maybe one day I'll be dealt an ugly lesson. But if I do, I hope to never, ever learn from it.

Some things are worth the risk. Even when you lose.


----------



## kept man (Jan 13, 2004)

Actual beehives are amazing "thinkers." They just recently proved that theory - been around since the 60's - that a honeybee's dance really does give specific directions for other bees to follow to find flowers. Wild. 

Of course, in biology I don't think they're called "hive minds" but "meta-organisms." Very cool.

I'm getting off topic. But I agree - I like the privacy of my own mind.


----------



## zenmonkey (Nov 21, 2004)

I'm just assuming you are still posting off thread or that is quite a non-sequitor and I don't have the patience to search all the other posts to see the honey...

Even after all the different reasons posted and the good arguments, HK get my echo "Stupid, yeah. Romantic, helplessly" If I got taken to the cleaners, so be it, willingly, now or 20 years from now.


----------



## litespeedchick (Jan 13, 2004)

Free Range - I'd just like to point out that there are people out there who oppose gay marriage for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Jen - depends on the situation. in many cases, there is a marriage *penalty*.


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

litespeedchick said:


> Free Range - I'd just like to point out that there are people out there who oppose gay marriage for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with religion.


 Neat-O! Like what??? Granted there's no shortage of hate and misunderstanding out there so as to not be cornered just by organized religion...


----------



## forkboy (Apr 20, 2004)

glenzx said:


> Neat-O! Like what??? Granted there's no shortage of hate and misunderstanding out there so as to not be cornered just by organized religion...


Hey Glen - you ever read much Robert Heinlein? I was reading "For Us the Living" the other day... written in 1938, based in 2068. In the book they are still struggling with getting to the moon, but live in a society where all the societal ills of today have been essentially taken care of for the past 60 years.

Kind of ironic that we achieved what was assumed to be insurmountable technical issues at the time in only 30 years, but in 70 years we are still dealing with the same misconceptions about liberty, and the relationship of religion and government.

He's got better books, but that was his first novel, and is a little heavy handed with the ideology, but an interesting read nonetheless.

-->> edit <<-- and in an effort to keep on-topic, anyone who goes into marriage today with some romantic notion of "til death do us part" needs to get their head examined.


----------



## Mountaingirl1961 (Nov 16, 2004)

Hello Kitty said:


> Yeah, but if he really looked like that dude in that crazy apache video I posted awhile back, you were already overlooking an obvious reason to avoid the alter altogether.  j/k ... couldn't resist.


Hahahaha... ain't that the truth! In my case love was blind, deaf, dumb and remarkably stupid!  A perfect blend of Wierd Al Yankovich and David Koresh... with personality traits from both! 



HK said:


> Look, you're probably right, about marriage being a business, and about it being smart in many cases to consider a pre-nup. I just wouldn't _want _ to marry someone if I felt like I had to protect myself and my assets, or he felt he had to do so, from the get go. Stupid, yeah. Romantic, helplessly. But in the end, what you live has a helluva lot (mostly?) to do with what you _intend; _ and I would not want to commit my life, heart, and soul to someone from a state of mind bent on self-protection. Sure, I might regret it. Maybe one day I'll be dealt an ugly lesson. But if I do, I hope to never, ever learn from it.
> 
> Some things are worth the risk. Even when you lose.


I really, really, really hope that's a lesson you never have to learn. And I'm a romantic too... it will be way, way hard for me to ever have a conversation like that. But, after having gone through it once, I do understand the importance of having those difficult conversations up front.


----------



## FreeRangeChicken (Jan 13, 2004)

litespeedchick said:


> Free Range - I'd just like to point out that there are people out there who oppose gay marriage for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with religion....


Absolutely! I disagree with them also.

However, my biggest grievance is with people waiving the flag of religious righteousness who feel everyone should be bound by *their* religious beliefs and that our constitution and laws should be rewritten to reflect such. Isn't our government supposed to be religiously neutral?

As for others, I have difficulty understanding why people who disapprove of gay marriage based on _other reasons_ care what loving, consenting adults do with their lives. No body says they have to like it, nobody says they have to participate in it, but why do they feel the need to prevent others from enjoying the benefits of marriage? Seems akin to the old arguments against interracial marriage.


----------



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

litespeedchick said:


> Jen - depends on the situation. in many cases, there is a marriage *penalty*.


I can see how there might be a financial penalty if the marriage ends in divorce... but that's not a thing dictated by the government, that's down to the couple involved.

As far as I know, the government only gives incentives, not penalties, to marry and have children (as if we need more people in the world). Granted, my experience only comes from having been a tax preparer, but I didn't see too many single people walking out of my shop with a cheque for $5000.

- Jen.


----------



## Oaken (Apr 18, 2004)

mahgnillig said:


> On the name thing...
> 
> I didn't change my name when I got married. My hubby has often talked about changing his name (before we even met), because his is one of those names that would be perfectly at home in one of Bart Simpson's crank calls. We left it kinda open-ended, so that he'd have the option to change his name to mine if he wanted, but we'll have definitely decided on one or the other by the time we have kids. We're leaning towards both taking my name, but it's a bit of a pain in the arse with all the paperwork, which is mainly the reason we haven't done it yet.
> 
> ...


I have no problem with a woman not taking her husband's name, but I do have a huge issue with the whole hyphenated last name thing.
It's such a wishy-washy solution. Choose one or the other! Make a decision!
What happens when you have two people with hyphenated last names that marry and then have children?
Do they become little Pierponce Kerry-Edwards-Bush-Cheney? It just becomes silly.

PS-Pre-nup - Two thumbs up! Marriage is a business transaction and should be treated as such.


----------



## Sabine (Jan 12, 2004)

mahgnillig said:


> I can see how there might be a financial penalty if the marriage ends in divorce... but that's not a thing dictated by the government, that's down to the couple involved.
> 
> As far as I know, the government only gives incentives, not penalties, to marry and have children (as if we need more people in the world). Granted, my experience only comes from having been a tax preparer, but I didn't see too many single people walking out of my shop with a cheque for $5000.
> 
> - Jen.


The marriage penalty comes into play when both partners work and make generally equal incomes (i.e. no one breadwinner). Since they are married and their income is combined, they are thrown into a higher tax bracket. All else being equal, they must now pay more in taxes than they did when they were single. In some cases, the difference can be substantial. I saw cases were the difference was $10,000 or more. With California being a community property state, and the married filing single bracket not being ideal, filing seperately did little to combat this. In addition, since this bumped up their AGI, they also lost out on other tax breaks that were AGI dependent, such as Hope Education. Also lose out on per return deductions such as $3,000 capital loss if applicable. It gets hefty.

But then again, its been a long time since I have prepared taxes so maybe things have changed.

I once did lots of work in forensic accounting for divorces. You would not believe the stuff that comes out of the woodwork during a divorce and how damn greedy everyone can be. It was downright depressing business.

Sabine


----------



## incisorette (Jul 23, 2005)

*hive mind*



Sabine said:


> What's a hive mind?
> 
> Sabine


Salut, Sabine, sorry to be so slow answering, I only check in every 4-5 days or so.
Ce que je veux dire, c'est que...
When people understand one another's motives and attitudes and agree on mutual priorities.
I have never experienced it, it seems to be a sort of holy grail, that one would hook up with someone who shared one's goals and priorities much as an insect colony seems to, i.e., to operate with a single goal and purpose.
I have been married 3x.
My first one decided that he should work a job and I should work two.
Both day job and night job, for me. He turned out to be a kleptomaniac and stole things from my mom's house for which I am still receiving crap years later.
My second one was a workaholic but didn't like any of the work I did and didn't value it.
I couldn't even do the dishes right.
My third one wants me as a meal ticket and gets away with doing as little as possible.
I've really had it and I wonder whether the couple's hive mind is possible...yet I know people who "have it"...they seem to just know what is the most sensible course to take and who should perform what role in this sensible course.
Damn! 8-P
Where IS this good stuff. I want it!


----------



## incisorette (Jul 23, 2005)

*used to feel like you, KM*



kept man said:


> Actual beehives are amazing "thinkers." They just recently proved that theory - been around since the 60's - that a honeybee's dance really does give specific directions for other bees to follow to find flowers. Wild.
> 
> Of course, in biology I don't think they're called "hive minds" but "meta-organisms." Very cool.
> 
> I'm getting off topic. But I agree - I like the privacy of my own mind.


I think the minds of other organisms are fascinating in their differentness as well.
And all organisms have a place in this world, and a role to fulfill in the holistic scheme of things. This doesn't mean you could live next to or with any old organism at all. Could you live with a tapeworm, KM? 
Maybe one of those Candiru ones who crawl up your urethra and propagate inside you?
Oh, *baby* YES!  [just a horrid joke, never mind me, I'm a cynical old thang]
And I always enjoyed the privacy of my own mind, too.
In fact, I was asked to be the libertarian party representative for my district in my state.
So I was Ms. "No Trespassing".
In a way, I still am.
But in relationships, things change.
Things come up, priorities change, needs arise. Whoever sees the priority pretty much jumps to take care of it.
You have screaming kids, deadlines, requirements, multitasking, chores, pressure, and
every married person has a scorecard. Or even if you don't start out that way, you get that way Pretty Damned Soon. You start to develop one. I say this with great sadness because I was an idealist and a mutualist with nevertheless a "good fences make good neighbors" ethic and I still believe in that if the other person has an attitude that "keeps the balance" like I do. Good fences make great neighbors. As long as one neighbor isn't collecting welfare and boozing it up and surfing MTB all the time and the other one isn't working like a crazy balance-sheet-eyeing dog trying to tread water functionally speaking. ;P 
I remember having an ongoing argument with a communist friend of mine who claimed not to be a communist but basically he really was. Like every slackster I have ever met who claimed leftist credentials (OK, this belongs in political forum and I will Shut Up in a minute but I am a right-wing tribalist anarchist Odinist)...about how the Pie should be Divided.
Was the Pie a "given pie" or was it produced by people who worked to contribute the ingredients?
He maintained that it was a Given Pie with hidden contributors and should be divided up evenly given that some contributions were not acknowledged by society.
I acknowledged that some contributions were not acknowledged by society.
But that pies should be divied up equally somehow.
How to quantify and qualify and weight the contributions?
WOW, what an ask.
I'd rather have another glass of red wine.
Maybe YOU have some ideas. 
Incisorette
(an INTJ)


----------



## kept man (Jan 13, 2004)

... wow. 

I really just like bees, honestly.


----------



## Dude (Jan 12, 2004)

I sure am glad I shut my mouth when I did..... BTW: Ants are also fascinating in their work ethic and the way they take care of each other.... I find it interesting when one dies they carry the dead ant away, now that is team work!  



-Dude


----------



## litespeedchick (Jan 13, 2004)

OK, how about this: My Stats professor was Dr. Horney. She got married, and kept her name. I mean, who could give up a name like Dr. Horney? You gotta admire that.


----------



## Sabine (Jan 12, 2004)

incisorette said:


> Salut, Sabine, sorry to be so slow answering, I only check in every 4-5 days or so.
> Ce que je veux dire, c'est que...
> When people understand one another's motives and attitudes and agree on mutual priorities.
> I have never experienced it, it seems to be a sort of holy grail, that one would hook up with someone who shared one's goals and priorities much as an insect colony seems to, i.e., to operate with a single goal and purpose.
> ...


Hmm..so..yeah.
I don't know what kind of honey you have in your hive, but you might want to consider changing the formula.

Sabine


----------



## shanedawg (Jan 9, 2004)

trailrash said:


> The way I see it...if you have to even consider the idea of having a pre-nup, you might as well not even get married. All it tells me is:
> 
> 1. He doesn't have enough faith in her or himself.
> 2. He doesn't appreciate the how awesome marriage can be.
> ...


You have all the answers. You will lead a perfect life. No need to worry about the future. Hopefully you get the sarcasm and think about this for a second.

People change. Unless you've seen divorce first hand you may never understand just how much someone you love can rip your heart out and spit on it. Then they want you to pay them alimony too. What a f'ed up legal system we have in this country that lets people get away with this. A prenup is a sheild, not against the person you are marrying (whom you are currently in love with and could never imagine doing something to harm you), but against the person they may become if they ever fall out of love with you.


----------



## Hello Kitty (Sep 3, 2004)

litespeedchick said:


> OK, how about this: My Stats professor was Dr. Horney. She got married, and kept her name. I mean, who could give up a name like Dr. Horney? You gotta admire that.


You're not going to believe this, but it's true: I know a dude named Richard Huffendick. And yes, he is gay.

Then I work with a guy who's last name is Grewcock. No kidding.


----------



## Mountaingirl1961 (Nov 16, 2004)

mahgnillig said:


> I can see how there might be a financial penalty if the marriage ends in divorce... but that's not a thing dictated by the government, that's down to the couple involved.
> 
> As far as I know, the government only gives incentives, not penalties, to marry and have children (as if we need more people in the world). Granted, my experience only comes from having been a tax preparer, but I didn't see too many single people walking out of my shop with a cheque for $5000.
> 
> - Jen.


Agreed absolutely, Jen. The government has no business whatsoever picking and choosing the "winners" in the marriage area, which it does by providing tax benefits for married people and parents.

And, Sabine - regarding the marriage "penalty" - can't they just file separately?


----------



## Mountaingirl1961 (Nov 16, 2004)

FreeRangeChicken said:


> Absolutely! I disagree with them also.
> 
> However, my biggest grievance is with people waiving the flag of religious righteousness who feel everyone should be bound by *their* religious beliefs and that our constitution and laws should be rewritten to reflect such. Isn't our government supposed to be religiously neutral?
> 
> As for others, I have difficulty understanding why people who disapprove of gay marriage based on _other reasons_ care what loving, consenting adults do with their lives. No body says they have to like it, nobody says they have to participate in it, but why do they feel the need to prevent others from enjoying the benefits of marriage? Seems akin to the old arguments against interracial marriage.


Thank you.

BTW, you're welcome back at the nutjob forum any time... we could use a little sanity over there from time to time (just for a change...)


----------



## Mountaingirl1961 (Nov 16, 2004)

alaskarider said:


> Yikes! My fiance and I haven't yet agreed whether I'll take his name or not (I'm indecisive but leaning towards no), but, given that I've already published research under my maiden name, I've pretty well decided to continue publishing under my maiden name regardless of my legal name. I figured it would help prevent confusion in my research field. I hadn't even thought of this possibility, though!


Alaskarider, here's how I dealt with it... maybe it will work for you.

I used my name professionally, took his name personally and legally.

I had my own career and network built over the years with my own last name... nobody would have returned my phone calls if I'd used his name! In addition, we had a small business, and wanted to get potential clients away from the idea that it was a "mom and pop" shop. It wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination. We had clients we had worked with for years who had no idea we were married. We handled things as professionally as possible on the job.

On the home front I went by his last name. To be honest, I would have preferred to have kept my own, out of respect for my father (I have no brothers). However, it was important to him so my maiden name became my middle name and I took his last name legally. No hyphen, thank God. I always thought those were just the height of arrogance.

As to pre-nups...

I like the seat belt analogy, a lot. In my case, I believe that a pre-nup would have helped eliminate a lot of the acrimony from the divorce because everybody would have known how it was going to come down, no arguments. As it turned out, ugliness ensued and any possibility of friendship with this man that I loved was gone, irrevocably.

It would have been worth the uncomfortable conversations necessary to make a pre-nup to have been able to maintain a friendly relationship, IMHO.

BTW, Kept is very right re: ways to burn somebody in a divorce. Happens all the time, unfortunately. The person you marry is, indeed, not the same person you divorce.


----------



## Sabine (Jan 12, 2004)

Mountaingirl1961 said:


> Agreed absolutely, Jen. The government has no business whatsoever picking and choosing the "winners" in the marriage area, which it does by providing tax benefits for married people and parents.
> 
> And, Sabine - regarding the marriage "penalty" - can't they just file separately?


Filing seperately rarely fixes the problem because the tax laws have adjusted for this. The filing seperate rates are based on brackets that are exactly half of the "married, filing jointly" brackets, but are still less-favorable than the "single" rates. Couples who file separately aren't permitted to take tax-saving education credits, the child care tax credit, or deduct interest on student loans. The cap gains loss is adjusted from $3,000 to only $1,500. Both spouses must use the same system for claiming deductions. If one spouse itemizes, the other must itemize, too, even if that individual would pay a lower tax bill by taking the standard deduction. The only times I ever recommended filing seperately was when Medical or Miscellaneous deductions were being phased out by a high AGI or when couples were legally seperated or one spouse did not want to be liable for what the other put on their return.

But, in general, there are advantages to filing jointly if there is one bread winner. Its just that in the instance of a couple who both earn money,there is a penalty. There are many things in the tax code that are there to encourage social or economic policy and don't really have anything to do with strictly taxation "fairness". For example, the home mortgage interest deduction, IRA deductions, Hope tax credit. But I suppose I am in the wrong forum for that discussion.

The above geeky ramblings by the way are just one reason I would not want my spouse and I to have a hive mind.

Sabine


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

How come a man wanting a pre-nup is "planning his out", but a woman NOT signing one somehow isn't considered to be planning her out? If she loves him for him and not his stuff, what is the problem?


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

*Living Trust*

Simple way around a Pre-nup is to have a lawyer draw up a Living Trust - once ya put something in your trust NO ONE can touch it...ever (before you're married of course). They're actually stronger than pre-nups and the other party does not need to be aware.

Now.. any monies or property gained during the course of the marriage would need to be split

Whoa!  - just realized I was in the Women's lounge. Interesting topic


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

forkboy said:


> Hey Glen - you ever read much Robert Heinlein? I was reading "For Us the Living" the other day... written in 1938, based in 2068. In the book they are still struggling with getting to the moon, but live in a society where all the societal ills of today have been essentially taken care of for the past 60 years.
> 
> Kind of ironic that we achieved what was assumed to be insurmountable technical issues at the time in only 30 years, but in 70 years we are still dealing with the same misconceptions about liberty, and the relationship of religion and government.
> 
> ...


I've read Heinlein - facsinating and fun, for sci-fi - especially given the era. The book I read was the infamous "Stranger in a Strange Land", ironically, how I feel as I get older...

Good point though. I mean really, who the heck cares who ya sleep with or what their name is!


----------



## Mountaingirl1961 (Nov 16, 2004)

Sabine said:


> There are many things in the tax code that are there to encourage social or economic policy and don't really have anything to do with strictly taxation "fairness". For example, the home mortgage interest deduction, IRA deductions, Hope tax credit. But I suppose I am in the wrong forum for that discussion.


Hahaha... I've raised those issues on the political forum a few times... but haven't gotten far with it as most of the folks over there are married and like their deductions. As far as I'm concerned, tax policy should encourage activities that are beneficial to the nation, discourage those that aren't, and stay neutral on social choices like marriage and childbearing that are none of the govt's business. IMHO. Fairness is always going to be in the eye of the beholder...

Thanks for the clarification on the "marriage penalty." It is good to know how that works.


----------



## kawboy8 (May 5, 2004)

Marry me Sarah. lol. Signing a piece of paper is not a big deal. I just buy stuff no one would want anyway. ant farms and stuff like that.



sarahk said:


> There's too many divorces these days. I would sign one. If I had anything, I would make one up myself (thru lawyer whatever). Divorces are messy and nasty. With a good lawyer you can get the other person's stuff wether you deserve it or not. Someon will try to get the mose stuff out of the deal just to try to hurt the other person. If your the nice guy, you'll be left with nothing.
> 
> My solution: I'm not getting married.
> 
> Sarah


----------



## erol/frost (Jan 3, 2004)

Hahaha! Pre-nups...


----------

