If you ain't no punk holler "we want pre-nup!"

efb

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/seven-out-of-ten-farmers-want-prenup-agreements-31171750.html

Farmers getting cold feet? Maybe it's the wellies!

Farmers looking for prenup!

LadyAthame

Please change the title to pre-nup it's disturbing.

And yes fair is fair it's a good idea.

efb

LadyAthame wrote: »

Please change the title to pre-nup it's disturbing.

And yes fair is fair it's a good idea.

It is!

efb

Why marry then if you want a pre-nup?

One of the rules of marriage is shared ownership

edword

marriages with pre nup agreements signed by both parties are statistically more likely to end in divorce, so i think farmers are being a bit short sighted here because by ensisting on pre nups you are increasing the likelihood or odds that their wife will eventually divorce them. have to wonder what theyre hiding really, but they havent earned a reputation for being greedy for nothing

LadyAthame

efb wrote: »

It is!

Thank you....we want nothing pre nipped.

At the moment, the enforceability of existing pre-nuptial agreements in the courts is decided on a case by case basis and family law judges are not bound to divide the assets according to these agreements.

A recent survey showed that seven out of ten farmers of both sexes and all ages are now in favour of pre-nupital agreements being recognised - despite opposition from the Catholic Church which says pre-nuptial agreements could damage or undermine the belief that marriage is for life.

I think it eases antagonism in separations. Agreed they should be made legally binding.

In the UK you can even enter into pre-cohabitation agreements. They would be good idea too.

efb

edword wrote: »

marriages with pre nup agreements signed by both parties are statistically more likely to end in divorce, so i think farmers are being a bit short sighted here because by ensisting on pre nups you are increasing the likelihood or odds that their wife will eventually divorce them. have to wonder what theyre hiding really, but they havent earned a reputation for being greedy for nothing

T'would be terrible if anything happened to her....

Sky King

edword wrote: »

marriages with pre nup agreements signed by both parties are statistically more likely to end in divorce, so i think farmers are being a bit short sighted here because by ensisting on pre nups

Maybe the only thing keeping people in a sh!tty marriage is the idea that they might have to sell all their stuff to pay off some hoebag of a wife (....or husband!!) if they split up.

Cookie_Monster

At the moment, the enforceability of existing pre-nuptial agreements in the courts is decided on a case by case basis and family law judges are not bound to divide the assets according to these agreements.

so they're not necessarily legally binding anyway so what's the point?

strobe

Sky King wrote: »

Maybe the only thing keeping people in a sh!tty marriage is the idea that they might have to sell all their stuff to pay off some hoebag of a wife (....or husband!!) if they split up.

I'd say that's quite likely. Been loads of threads in the relationship issues forum from guys saying they are in sexless marriages/have a cheating wife/don't love her/are unhappy/etc. People say "well leave her for fvck sake" and the response is "I can't afford to keep paying a mortgage on a house I'm not living in, pay maintenence, as well as rent somewhere else".

A fair number of guys (and girls too I'm sure) that are in unhappy marriages don't seek divorce cause it'd cripple them financially to exit the marriage, I'd say.

DoYouEvenLift

Getting married, lol

tritium

I'm pretty OK with legally enforceable pre nups. The idea that someone is entitled to half of everything you've ever worked for based on zero contribution on their part is silly.

El_Duderino 09

edword wrote: »

marriages with pre nup agreements signed by both parties are statistically more likely to end in divorce, so i think farmers are being a bit short sighted here because by ensisting on pre nups you are increasing the likelihood or odds that their wife will eventually divorce them. have to wonder what theyre hiding really, but they havent earned a reputation for being greedy for nothing

Well that's the tail wagging the dog. It's an understandable but wholly spurious use of statistics.

People who suspect they are marrying a gold digger are more likely to get a prenup and some of them are bound to be correct so that's going to add bias to the stats. People who have a specific asset that they want to protect (farmers) are likely to be slightly different to the norm which will include 60 year old, recent lotto winners who marry a 25 year old and surprises surprise get both a prenup and a divorce.

LadyAthame

edword wrote: »

marriages with pre nup agreements signed by both parties are statistically more likely to end in divorce, so i think farmers are being a bit short sighted here because by ensisting on pre nups you are increasing the likelihood or odds that their wife will eventually divorce them. have to wonder what theyre hiding really, but they havent earned a reputation for being greedy for nothing

That's not true.
Only 5% of divorces that occur in the United States have a prenuptial agreement. 49% of US marriages end in divorce. Only five to ten % of people in the US get a pre-nup. That means only half or less of those who get pre-nups will end up divorced. Which is the same as the rest of the couples who don't.

I would say people who go through divorces are statistically more likely to regret not having a pre-nup. I have seen some pretty messed up things simply because it was never agreed what would happen to property before hand.

They are practical documents rather than cynical safety nets. They ensure children are provided for.They often make a difference between the marriage that lasts one year and the one that lasts fifteen years and produces three kids and they should. Fair pre-nups can be a positive thing. They can have in-fidelity clauses.

It can save on party from the debts of another.Prenuptial agreements are often thought to be about wealth, but a prenup can also protect someone against a spouse who is entering a marriage with a lot of debt. It can limit liablity for certain things.

It clearly defines division of assets.It's sad but true, love doesn't always last. At least it makes couples talk about money. It's a squirmy touchy subject.

And legalizing them does not force all couples to.



If you are determined for your marriage to succeed then don't let it get in the way and work at it. But saying that a pre-nup would make you more likely to divorce is not a sign of a strong relationship. Marriage is hard. It will be hard. It will be awful at times. Don't delude yourself. You could stipulate counselling etc before divorce.

I think there is a social stigma to them.

Grays Sports Almanac

efb wrote: »

Why marry then if you want a pre-nup?

One of the rules of marriage is shared ownership

But em...when you stop being married, why would you still want to share everything?

The Diabolical Monocle

Don't marry.

_Kaiser_

It's probably a good idea

Obviously whatever a couple build together should be split evenly with appropriate adjustments if there's kids involved, but if there's a significant difference between what both had at the start, then it makes sense.
While we might all like to think, and hope, that marriage is for life there's any number of reasons why that might not turn out to be true.. and not necessarily because one side cheats.

Lt J.R. Bell

efb wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/seven-out-of-ten-farmers-want-prenup-agreements-31171750.html

Farmers getting cold feet? Maybe it's the wellies!

Farmers looking for prenup!

Would you blame them?.Plenty of gold diggas about

Once the children are provided for, pre nups should come into existence. Also, shorter divorce law periods. 4 years is crazy

One eyed Jack

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Would you blame them?.Plenty of gold diggas about

Well anyone would be stupid to rush into marriage then surely without really getting to know the person first, and if you're bringing material assets into the marriage, then you're making certain vows, and those vows have to mean something. Pre-nup agreements totally devalue the meaning of these vows, leading to a situation like in the States where people simply don't take their marriages seriously because they know they always have an easy get-out clause if they have a pre-nup.

Once the children are provided for, pre nups should come into existence. Also, shorter divorce law periods. 4 years is crazy

This I actually agree with, four years is ridiculous to be waiting for a decree of divorce.

Wacker The Attacker

efb wrote: »

Why marry then if you want a pre-nup?

One of the rules of marriage is shared ownership

Do you think thats how it work when it gets to the divorce courts?

If it is then why does the perception exist that women are favoured by the courts more than men in these cases?

Wacker The Attacker

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well anyone would be stupid to rush into marriage then surely without really getting to know the person first, and if you're bringing material assets into the marriage, then you're making certain vows, and those vows have to mean something. Pre-nup agreements totally devalue the meaning of these vows, leading to a situation like in the States where people simply don't take their marriages seriously because they know they always have an easy get-out clause if they have a pre-nup.





This I actually agree with, four years is ridiculous to be waiting for a decree of divorce.

People change, particularly where there's large quantities of money involved. What you say is true to a point but goes completely out the window when divorce proceedings kick off.

RhubarbCrumble

edword wrote: »

have to wonder what theyre hiding really, but they havent earned a reputation for being greedy for nothing

Not so much greedy I would say as mean, and I'm speaking from experience.

facing_west

RhubarbCrumble wrote: »

Not so much greedy I would say as mean, and I'm speaking from experience.

what could be more mean than thinking you are entitled to half of something you never paid for or created ?

any man with significant assets takes a big risk getting married today , such is the overwhelming bias by the courts against men in these cirucumstances

LadyAthame

facing_west wrote: »

any man with significant assets takes a big risk getting married today , such is the overwhelming bias by the courts against men in these cirucumstances

I agree with recognizing pre nups etc but no one is forcing them to marry.

ohnonotgmail

LadyAthame wrote: »

No one is forcing them to marry.

what is the problem with somebody protecting their assets before they enter a legally binding agreement?

LadyAthame

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is the problem with somebody protecting their assets before they enter a legally binding agreement?

I agree with recognizing pre nups ...i have no issue with it /them..i..i still think the ...a plague will befall his house reaction to marriage in general is over the top

facing_west

LadyAthame wrote: »

I agree with recognizing pre nups etc but no one is forcing them to marry.

your rationalising a culture of grotesque entitlement

LadyAthame

facing_west wrote: »

your rationalising a culture of grotesque entitlement

By saying pre-nups should be recognized?

ohnonotgmail

facing_west wrote: »

your rationalising a culture of grotesque entitlement

you are going to have to explain that one.

The Corinthian

efb wrote: »

One of the rules of marriage is shared ownership

Another one is it has to be between a man and a woman. I take it that you consider gay marriage a bad idea too?

LadyAthame wrote: »

I agree with recognizing pre nups etc but no one is forcing them to marry.

If you cohabit with someone for five years (two if there's a child in the mix), you already will have the financial obligations foisted on you, automatically. If unmarried, you are in a severe disadvantage in terms of rights to your child (naturally only if you're a man) or taxation.

So there is more than a little coercion taking place where it comes to marriage, and that is before one considers the social coercion that's long been present.

facing_west

LadyAthame wrote: »

By saying pre-nups should be recognized?

by trotting out a line like

" no one is forcing them to marry "


like saying no one is forced to be a rally driver so if they get hurt , its their own fault effectively

LadyAthame

Saying all women are gold diggers is as paranoid as saying all men who ask for pre-nups think all women are gold diggers.
That's what I mean.

If a guy asks a woman for a pre-nup it does mean he thinks any less of her or suspects her character people who think that are operating on a very childish level. But the knee jerk reaction of hostility to marriage and women like that is just as childish and irrational.

It's not indicative of having a low opinion of women to ask for one or vice versa. But if you DO have such a weirded warped view of all women being that way or of marriage then you shouldn't be getting married or even be in a relationship.

And i refuse to rise to your baiting.

facing_west

The Corinthian wrote: »

Another one is it has to be between a man and a woman. I take it that you consider gay marriage a bad idea too?

If you cohabit with someone for five years (two if there's a child in the mix), you already will have the financial obligations foisted on you, automatically. If unmarried, you are in a severe disadvantage in terms of rights to your child (naturally only if you're a man) or taxation.

So there is more than a little coercion taking place where it comes to marriage, and that is before one considers the social coercion that's long been present.

social coercion indeed

feminism has long instilled an attitude of " get all you can "

ohnonotgmail

facing_west wrote: »

by trotting out a line like

" no one is forcing them to marry "


like saying no one is forced to be a rally driver so if they get hurt , its their own fault effectively

thats a pretty poor analogy. If you choose to take part in a dangerous sport then it is pretty much your fault if you get hurt. As far as i know marriage is not a dangerous sport. But i'm not married so i may be incorrect on that.

facing_west

LadyAthame wrote: »

Saying all women are gold diggers is as paranoid as saying all men who ask for pre-nups think all women are gold diggers.
That's what I mean.

If a guy asks a woman for a pre-nup it does mean he thinks any less of her or suspects her character people who think that are operating on a very childish level. But the knee jerk reaction of hostility to marriage and women like that is just as childish and irrational.

It's not indicative of having a low opinion of women to ask for one or vice versa. But if you DO have such a weirded warped view of all women being that way or of marriage then you shouldn't be getting married or even be in a relationship.

And i refuse to rise to your baiting.

its not a level pitch of suspicion , male concern is well grounded as the institutions of the state are firmly biased against men when it comes to sharing out assets , assets the man often entirely owned prior to marriage

women are actively encouraged by society and the state to grab all they can in the event of a break up

facing_west

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

thats a pretty poor analogy. If you choose to take part in a dangerous sport then it is pretty much your fault if you get hurt. As far as i know marriage is not a dangerous sport. But i'm not married so i may be incorrect on that.

the other poster ( ladyathame ) said the farmer chose to get married as if to imply they knew what they were letting themselves in for

you were able to read my post so you can read theirs too

LadyAthame

facing_west wrote: »

by trotting out a line like

" no one is forcing them to marry "


like saying no one is forced to be a rally driver so if they get hurt , its their own fault effectively

Don't get married then.I don't care.

ohnonotgmail

facing_west wrote: »

the other poster ( ladyathame ) said the farmer chose to get married as if to imply they knew what they were letting themselves in for

you were able to read my post so you can read theirs too

i'm not really sure what your point is at all.

zeffabelli

LadyAthame wrote: »

That's not true.
Only 5% of divorces that occur in the United States have a prenuptial agreement. 49% of US marriages end in divorce. Only five to ten % of people in the US get a pre-nup. That means only half or less of those who get pre-nups will end up divorced. Which is the same as the rest of the couples who don't.

.

The 49% is a myth- that the people like Elizabeth Taylor who divorce 8 times elevate the average. Completely inept statistics.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/divorce/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/30/divorce-rate-50-percent_n_6396922.html

If you suspect someone is a golddigger and need a contract, you don't have enough trust to be marrying them in the first place.

facing_west

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm not really sure what your point is at all.

well then it was nice chatting , good day

LadyAthame

facing_west wrote: »

the other poster ( ladyathame ) said the farmer chose to get married as if to imply they knew what they were letting themselves in for

you were able to read my post so you can read theirs too

You are being completely unreasonable.
No i didn't you are mis-representing what i said. If you read my other post you will see i think pre-nups should be allowed and you know that. What I object to is the debate about them being used to have a good old misogynistic rant at women.

In fact that approach damages the argument that pre-nups are not cynical.You are the type that gives them a bad name. They are not for men who hate women nor for men who fear women. Nor is marriage and no one is forcing those types of men or anyone to marry anyway.

LadyAthame

facing_west wrote: »

well then it was nice chatting , good day

It wasn't nice. You leave first.

A friend of my brother's, who had a fair few £'m through successful work career, convinced his wife into signing a pre-nup (his idea but blamed it on his dad!). 10 years later, he was looking in the window of his own house, at the wife, his kids and the personal trainer she had left him for - pre-nups not very enforceable.....

LadyAthame

zeffabelli wrote: »

The 49% is a myth- that the people like Elizabeth Taylor who divorce 8 times elevate the average. Completely inept statistics.

If you suspect someone is a golddigger and need a contract, you don't have enough trust to be marrying them in the first place.

A pre nup does not mean you think your partner is a gold digger but if you think they are that way then agreed no pre-nup is going to protect you. They will break your life , heart and mind. A relationship can't function under that suspicion anyway. Leave them and get on with it.

It doesn't mean you trust them any less. You just know you are both human and may want out at some point.If it is about trust then don't even bother.

Adamantium

If a woman or man wouldn't be adult to agree to a pre-nup and that bad things can and likely will happen down the line that no one intended for, Then they may want to reconsider the person they're marrying.

It's the mark of an enlightened person to say "We may do our best, but this may not work" and be strong enough to contemplate that. Think of it like contemplating your mortality.

The Corinthian

LadyAthame wrote: »

Don't get married then.I don't care.

I won't. And increasingly people don't, which is why the cohabitation act was brought in.

It's not a question of gold-diggers tbh, but entitlement.

It seems bizarre that people can genuinely feel entitled to be maintained at the same level as within the marriage after that marriage has ended. Or that they can have ownership over assets that may predate the marriage and that they contributed nothing to accruing. Yet that is what society tells us, and what people end up feeling entitled to. They're not gold-diggers - after all, they're entitled to this.

While in practice this tends to benefit women far more often than men, and less said about the gender prejudices in family law the better, in reality it is a bizarre principle regardless of the gender of the person who can avail of this entitlement.

zeffabelli wrote: »

If you suspect someone is a golddigger and need a contract, you don't have enough trust to be marrying them in the first place.

That's not true, because (ignoring the possibility of deception) you can completely trust the person you marry, but you may not trust that same person ten or twenty years down the line. People change.

LadyAthame

glasso wrote: »

A friend of my brother's, who had a fair few £'m through successful work career, convinced his wife into signing a pre-nup (his idea but blamed it on his dad!). 10 years later, he was looking in the window of his own house, at the wife, his kids and the personal trainer she had left him for - pre-nups not very enforceable.....

Currently any solicitor in THIS country selling a pre-nup is a con artist. They are worthless right now.

zeffabelli

LadyAthame wrote: »

Currently any solicitor in THIS country selling a pre-nup is a con artist. They are worthless right now.

Aren't most family lawyers con artists? The whole thing is a con.

LadyAthame

The Corinthian wrote: »

I won't. And increasingly people don't, which is why the cohabitation act was brought in.

It's not a question of gold-diggers tbh, but entitlement.

It seems bizarre that people can genuinely feel entitled to be maintained at the same level as within the marriage after that marriage has ended. Or that they can have ownership over assets that may predate the marriage and that they contributed nothing to accruing. Yet that is what society tells us, and what people end up feeling entitled to. They're not gold-diggers - after all, they're entitled to this.

While in practice this tends to benefit women far more often than men, and less said about the gender prejudices in family law the better, in reality it is a bizarre principle regardless of the gender of the person who can avail of this entitlement.

That's not true, because (ignoring the possibility of deception) you can completely trust the person you marry, but you may not trust that same person ten or twenty years down the line. People change.

You realize i agree with recognizing pre-nups right? read my first post.

LadyAthame

zeffabelli wrote: »

Aren't most family lawyers con artists? The whole thing is a con.

Well :-/

The Corinthian

Adamantium wrote: »

It's the mark of an enlightened person to say "We may do our best, but this may not work" and be strong enough to contemplate that. Think of it like contemplating your mortality.

It's a mark of an idiot to say "we may do our best, but this may not work" and not take out some form of insurance or measure to mitigate against the latter possibility.