[Hoser]

An American lawyer, conservative from my youth but red-pilled only a few years ago, I've recently had a change of heart regarding pre-nuptual agreements, and I think all men would do well to consider the same.

Pre-nups, so the thinking used to go, make divorce a foregone conclusion. This was true when divorce was rare and a disgrace to the divorcees, when traditional family values and societal pressure would persuade a couple to deal with its issues rather than spilt.

Today, however, when divorce is mainstream and in some instances virtually expected, pre-nuptual agreements can make divorce far less likely.

Think about it: if the woman believes that divorce would allow her to leave her boring life and experience an exciting new platter of Live, Love, Laugh (a.k.a. cock)---all bankrolled by her ex-husband---what incentive has she to put in the effort required to make her marriage work?

Consider again the same woman tied to an airtight pre-nup in which, if she ever steps out of line, her meal ticket expires, her having waived any claim to her husband's largesse.

I dunno about you, but for some reason I can't help but picture the wife in the second scenario being eminently more sweet to her husband than the one in the first.

Times having changed, there's no longer anything unromantic about a pre-nup; rather, done correctly, it's Alpha AF.

[Phoenix]

(03-06-2017 11:11 AM)Hoser Wrote:  

Today, however, when divorce is mainstream and in some instances virtually expected, pre-nuptual agreements can make divorce far less likely.

Yes, that's part of the idea. The strongest contract is one equally beneficial when signed, and equally painful when broken.

[PV2X]

I concur, if all men would enact the use of Pre-Nup's the idea and definition of modern day Marriage would change, for the benefit of Men.

[MaceTyrell]

As an aspiring law student this brought a tear to my eye.

Pre-nups convo drop as a screening tool in 2017.

[doc holliday]

It's a must in this day and age. Any dude who is going to get married and doesn't have one is playing with fire. But, it has to be done correctly ie do it at least 6 months before the wedding, she needs to have her own lawyer look at it and sign off on it so she can't claim that it was signed under duress which is how prenups usually get tossed. Yes, I agree that a prenup will reduce the chances of your getting a divorce and if she won't sign it, then you have a chick who won't take divorce off of the table in her future and thus you must get rid of her.

[scrambled]

^ Warning in many jurisdictions, like California, the court will test it for "conscientiousness" during a divorce despite full consent and lawyers on both sides. So no real escape--been this way for years

[Mufasa]

sorry to be the guy that shits in the punch bowl but...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20...usin-says/

video:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/winner-pr...his_widget

[Hoser]

MaceTyrell: "Pre-nups convo drop as a screening tool in 2017."

I like it! Cements your frame early and elicits the bitch within, if there is one. Recommend until further notice.

[LockeAndLoad]

(03-06-2017 01:38 PM)Mufasa Wrote:  

sorry to be the guy that shits in the punch bowl but...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20...usin-says/

video:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/winner-pr...his_widget

Yes, the idea that a prenup is a cure-all for divorce rates is somewhat faulty. Pre-nups are simply contracts between two people. Good attorneys will be able to work their way around a pre-nup in the event of a divorce anyway. Won't stop divorce, won't stop infidelity.

The reason people even KNOW about pre-nups is the fact that they are always mentioned when a celebrity is going through a divorce.

[david.garrett84]

Guys,

This is all close to bollocks. Some of you want so dearly for this to be true that you're willing to ignore the overwhelming evidence out there that judges, like the laws themselves, favor women in family court proceedings.

Great but hugely depressing synopsis out of the UK:

Quote:

It added that in the eyes of the court, ‘meeting needs is the central factor on divorce’, and only the very wealthy – who have more money and property than their ex-partner could possibly need – can expect to benefit from having a pre-nup.

There is no legal definition of what a divorced husband or wife ‘needs’, but courts will usually try to make sure both parties live as closely as they can afford to the lifestyle they enjoyed before their divorce.

Judges will also put the needs of any children first. The guide, called Sorting out Finances on Divorce, said the only case where a pre-nup might be of use to an ordinary couple was when a spouse hoped to keep a specific item of personal or sentimental value, such as a family heirloom, pet or vehicle.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rness.html

I disagree that judges will follow the wishes of wealthy men, though. It's just that they're fucked over less in proportional terms. Their jobless witch of an ex-wife will almost certainly get too much, many thousands per month, but at least a far more cashed-up guy won't be thrown on the scrapheap to make ends' meet, unlike the average joe who hands over his house and most of his retirement funds, plus assumes liability for exorbitant, unrealistic child support.

Speaking of child support, even if you win moderately on the prenup count, an ex with whom you had children can easily fuck you over using "Think of the children!" diversions to get herself more money. The court won't follow up on how she spends the dough you cough up to her for the "kids".

Some of the few ways I can think of for greatly minimizing your risk of divorce rape are measures like trust funds created prior to marriage (and perhaps partially administered by a close relative) or what former British First Lady Cherie Blair did with her son. When he married, this son of Tony and Cherie had property owned jointly with his mother, reducing the chances that his bride could lay her fingers on it later on.

[Hoser]

Mr. Garrett: sadly, I agree with much you've said; however, rather than dissuading me, you've made me more adamant. Hiring a good (not "affordable", but good) lawyer, or team of lawyers, for some of us might be worth much more than its cost.

Why? Depressing as it is to admit, laws aren't written using common sense (thus is the reason lawyers have jobs). Courts everywhere use the "Best Interests of the Child" (I hope I'm not the only one who recognizes that this acronym spells "BITCH") as the judge's litmus test. Never has there been more malleable a test.

A good lawyer knows this, and can help you avoid the associated pitfalls.

Mind you, a lawyer is only as good as his nation's laws allow him to be. Some jurisdictions are cucked beyond repair.

[PapayaTapper]

Pre-nups are only as good as your ability (financially) to defend it. They aren't bullet proof* but they can be a useful component of a comprehensive asset/wealth protection strategy

Being "judgement proof" is another vital prophylactic

[Sidney Crosby]

(03-06-2017 02:03 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  

Guys,

This is all close to bollocks. Some of you want so dearly for this to be true that you're willing to ignore the overwhelming evidence out there that judges, like the laws themselves, favor women in family court proceedings.

Great but hugely depressing synopsis out of the UK:

Quote:

It added that in the eyes of the court, ‘meeting needs is the central factor on divorce’, and only the very wealthy – who have more money and property than their ex-partner could possibly need – can expect to benefit from having a pre-nup.

There is no legal definition of what a divorced husband or wife ‘needs’, but courts will usually try to make sure both parties live as closely as they can afford to the lifestyle they enjoyed before their divorce.

Judges will also put the needs of any children first. The guide, called Sorting out Finances on Divorce, said the only case where a pre-nup might be of use to an ordinary couple was when a spouse hoped to keep a specific item of personal or sentimental value, such as a family heirloom, pet or vehicle.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rness.html

I disagree that judges will follow the wishes of wealthy men, though. It's just that they're fucked over less in proportional terms. Their jobless witch of an ex-wife will almost certainly get too much, many thousands per month, but at least a far more cashed-up guy won't be thrown on the scrapheap to make ends' meet, unlike the average joe who hands over his house and most of his retirement funds, plus assumes liability for exorbitant, unrealistic child support.

Speaking of child support, even if you win moderately on the prenup count, an ex with whom you had children can easily fuck you over using "Think of the children!" diversions to get herself more money. The court won't follow up on how she spends the dough you cough up to her for the "kids".

Some of the few ways I can think of for greatly minimizing your risk of divorce rape are measures like trust funds created prior to marriage (and perhaps partially administered by a close relative) or what former British First Lady Cherie Blair did with her son. When he married, this son of Tony and Cherie had property owned jointly with his mother, reducing the chances that his bride could lay her fingers on it later on.

That seems like the one of the better ways if you have a family member you can trust. "Own it" 50/50 with a family member then if the sloot tries anything she could only take half of 50%

I don't know about the states, but I'm pretty sure in Canada if you are married and receive an inheritance, if you put it in a separate bank account and keep it there, the wife can't touch it even if you get divorced.

[tremont]

I think the major problem is that the legal interpretation of marriage is outdated. The old mentality is that you wouldn't divorce unless it was an extreme situation. Getting married meant planting roots and starting a family, which is for life. Many people unquestionably believed that marriage was forever regardless of how miserable they were. Women also were not working, instead staying at home with kids.

Socially we no longer value marriage as much as our grand parents. A marriage nowadays is really just a stronger promise not to breakup with your girlfriend. Women have jobs, income, and assets of their own. However, the laws have not kept up with us.

(03-06-2017 11:11 AM)Hoser Wrote:  

Think about it: if the woman believes that divorce would allow her to leave her boring life and experience an exciting new platter of Live, Love, Laugh (a.k.a. cock)---all bankrolled by her ex-husband---what incentive has she to put in the effort required to make her marriage work?

Your idea is spot on and we need to think this way. Everyone is selfish and opportunistic in relationships. Divorce doesn't mean much and has 0 social stigma, especially when everyone else is doing it.

If you have any assets whatsoever, you must protect yourself with a pre-nup. If your girl refuses then dump her, because that means your money is more important than you are.

I got married and divorced once without a prenup. I'm never making that mistake again.


I find very interesting divorce stories of high profile rich people:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/c...story.html

Seriously, these guys are billionaires because of being smart and accomplishing great things. The wife stays home and spends the husbands money, providing almost no value. Its shameful that such a parasite thinks she is entitled to the rewards of what only a great man like her husband was able to achieve.

Work so hard to make money and build our wealth. Only to lose half of it to some self entitled slut? No fucking way..

(03-06-2017 01:36 PM)scrambled Wrote:  

^ Warning in many jurisdictions, like California, the court will test it for "conscientiousness" during a divorce despite full consent and lawyers on both sides. So no real escape--been this way for years

Yeah seriously, fuck California. I'm glad I don't live in that liberal nazi state.

(03-06-2017 07:45 PM)Sidney Crosby Wrote:  

I don't know about the states, but I'm pretty sure in Canada if you are married and receive an inheritance, if you put it in a separate bank account and keep it there, the wife can't touch it even if you get divorced.

Its true in the states. If you receive inheritance she has no claim to it. However if you put the cash in your shared bank account and it gets mixed with everything else overtime, it gets hard to track and her lawyers will be going after it for sure.


Keep your pre-martial assets always physically separated! Make it easy to determine which is which, otherwise her lawyers will do everything they can do try to argue she should have a share of it.

[Merenguero]

For the top one to three percent of people, Pre Nups are extremely important and should never be overlooked. Pretty much everyone else in the United States doesn't have a pot to piss in at the time of marriage and probably won't have a pot to piss in at the time of divorce. Their financial circumstances will actually very likely be worse at the time of divorce. If there are children involved, there will likely be a custody dispute at the time of the divorce, regardless of whether or not a Pre Nup exists. Pre Nups are great in theory and great for people at the top, but the truth is, they are entirely irrelevant for the vast majority of the population.

[CleanSlate]

(03-06-2017 10:08 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

For the top one to three percent of people, Pre Nups are extremely important and should never be overlooked. Pretty much everyone else in the United States doesn't have a pot to piss in at the time of marriage and probably won't have a pot to piss in at the time of divorce. Their financial circumstances will actually very likely be worse at the time of divorce. If there are children involved, there will likely be a custody dispute at the time of the divorce, regardless of whether or not a Pre Nup exists. Pre Nups are great in theory and great for people at the top, but the truth is, they are entirely irrelevant for the vast majority of the population.

Yes and no.

If you have retirement accounts you want to protect (which I'm sure more than 1-3% will want to do), a prenup is absolutely vital. Without it, I would have to hand over half of the value of all my accounts AND pay taxes and penalties for taking the money out too early.

[Green-On-GO]

Pretty sure pre nups are worthless in Australia especially if kids are invovled

[Merenguero]

(03-06-2017 10:19 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 10:08 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

For the top one to three percent of people, Pre Nups are extremely important and should never be overlooked. Pretty much everyone else in the United States doesn't have a pot to piss in at the time of marriage and probably won't have a pot to piss in at the time of divorce. Their financial circumstances will actually very likely be worse at the time of divorce. If there are children involved, there will likely be a custody dispute at the time of the divorce, regardless of whether or not a Pre Nup exists. Pre Nups are great in theory and great for people at the top, but the truth is, they are entirely irrelevant for the vast majority of the population.

Yes and no.

If you have retirement accounts you want to protect (which I'm sure more than 1-3% will want to do), a prenup is absolutely vital. Without it, I would have to hand over half of the value of all my accounts AND pay taxes and penalties for taking the money out too early.

I agree that often, the only unencumbered asset which people have are retirement accounts, but in my experience, people often withdraw some or most of their money from them in order to cover the other incredibly stupid financial things which they do and at the time of a divorce there is often little or nothing left. Some plans require the plan participant to notify his or her spouse in the even that he or she tries to withdraw anything from a retirement account. Often in the face of crushing credit card, student loan, or other stupid debt, the non plan participant spouse is all too happy to oblige. Things obviously change once the divorce is pending.

[Phoenix]

(03-06-2017 01:38 PM)Mufasa Wrote:  

sorry to be the guy that shits in the punch bowl but...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20...usin-says/

In Australia both sides have to have independent legal counsel before signing to make the prenup binding. That would also nullify a lot of the "unconscionable" (Judge doesn't like it) stuff in other jurisdictions, as it makes it harder for her to claim being coerced into it.

In Britain they just seem to be complete cunts; they didn't even have prenups until recently. Judges seem more interested in imposing their will and the state's will than the agreed to will of the two contracting parties. Fucking scum, may they get theirs.

The whole purpose of contracts is certainty as to exactly what you are both agreeing to. When judges then just judge whatever they want, making certain things uncertain, they are deliberately undermining the basis of social order. You'd think if they're going to do shit like that, they'd offer a "declaratory judgement of validity", whereby you can take the contract to a court after you sign it and ask them "now sign that you'll enforce it, cunt".

One additional safeguard (obviously for the more wealthy) is using international trusts. These are trusts held outside the jurisdiction of your courts. So for instance, if you lived in Britain, you would have some of your assets held in trust overseas. Then the trust can just ignore judgements against your assets as amusing opinions of some white wig wearing cunt.

The only safeguard against an evil state is the existence of other states (and don't they know it! which is why they're so against the existence of more than one).

[MongolianAbroad]

(03-06-2017 01:36 PM)scrambled Wrote:  

^ Warning in many jurisdictions, like California, the court will test it for "conscientiousness" during a divorce despite full consent and lawyers on both sides. So no real escape--been this way for years

Of course there's an escape, you move out of California.

And it's very real, as real as the other 49 states, or the legally favorable ones, anyhow.

That said, nothing's guaranteed, so make sure to stack the odds in your favor by being extremely selective about the woman you marry, if you marry.

[MongolianAbroad]

(03-06-2017 08:09 PM)tremont Wrote:  

Socially we no longer value marriage as much as our grand parents. A marriage nowadays is really just a stronger promise not to breakup with your girlfriend. Women have jobs, income, and assets of their own. However, the laws have not kept up with us.

To add to this, since marriage means nothing in the West nowadays, what exactly do we get out of going through it that we wouldn't otherwise?

You could argue it means something to your girl, but I would argue finding a girl that it means something to in the West is almost a fool's errand.

So what do we, as men, gain from entering into a marriage, that we wouldn't gain otherwise from simply dating the woman for as long as we please?

Is there a list out there somewhere? Off the top of my head I'd say if you marry, then if you pass away I presume your wife and children would get your things, which is good, but you could write a will to that effect and not have to get married, so that doesn't count.

You could say it binds you before God to your woman, but in America, even so-called Christians are by and large atheist, in thoughts and deeds anyhow. Very, very, very few people actually live their lives according to Christianity nowadays. If any religion or way of life is predominant in America, I'd say it's individualism, and belief in it is very strong.

So what do we gain by marrying an American woman, in America, that we don't have access to anyhow through one means or another?

Which one of you guys is buying what they're peddling, and why? I'm curious, it'd be interesting to get various insights into this.

[tremont]

(03-06-2017 10:53 PM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

So what do we gain by marrying an American woman, in America, that we don't have access to anyhow through one means or another?

In my opinion you gain nothing, unless shes coming from a wealthy family.

The only reason I'd considering marriage again is because I prefer to date foreign girls and sometimes this is the only way you can stay together.

[doc holliday]

(03-06-2017 11:25 PM)tremont Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 10:53 PM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

So what do we gain by marrying an American woman, in America, that we don't have access to anyhow through one means or another?

In my opinion you gain nothing, unless shes coming from a wealthy family.

The only reason I'd considering marriage again is because I prefer to date foreign girls and sometimes this is the only way you can stay together.

Gawd damn, the thought of marrying an American women sends a cold shiver up and down my spine.

[MongolianAbroad]

(03-06-2017 11:25 PM)tremont Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 10:53 PM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

So what do we gain by marrying an American woman, in America, that we don't have access to anyhow through one means or another?

In my opinion you gain nothing, unless shes coming from a wealthy family.

The only reason I'd considering marriage again is because I prefer to date foreign girls and sometimes this is the only way you can stay together.

Agreed on the second count, but regarding the first, if you marry a wealthy woman, if you aren't wealthy yourself, you may just become her and her family's bitch, so there's that. Let's face it, if her dad makes more money than you and funds her lifestyle, you can easily be relegated to a living, breathing dildo. I don't see someone that isn't bringing the dollars in having a real say in decisions.

Some guys may be ok with with that, for the perks of sharing the lifestyle her daddy provides her.

If she actually made her wealth on her own, then she's older...that wouldn't work for me, but some guys could also be into that.

On the other hand, if you're already wealthy yourself...well then what's the point? At that point you can live abroad, have children, and never marry, just cohabitate. Your wealth could support you and her, and you could find a 10 who'd have no complaints with that scenario. Or do the same in America in states that don't legally bind you for cohabitation (if any).

But you're right, it could give you a lifestyle upgrade, there's just a lot of variables to consider.

Also, if she divorces you, you could still be worse off, because the funds are most likely in her dad's name, not in hers, or locked away in trusts, while she can still go after your assets, with a vengeance if she has the lots of funding.

Lots of variables.

[Hoser]

I'm happily married, going on 16 years. There's something about having a legally and morally binding agreement with a girl I adore, til death do us part, that makes our life more rewarding and our sex more satisfying.

Modern marriage problems are a product of a faulty society, not a flawed manner of [marriage] agreement.

Properly planned marriage is a Good Thing. Be careful to not throw out the baby with the bath water.