Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    facing_west
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 20 ✭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 "


  • Options
    #34
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    facing_west
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 20 ✭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


  • Options
    #36
    facing_west
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 20 ✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    facing_west
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 20 ✭facing_west


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i'm not really sure what your point is at all.

    well then it was nice chatting , good day


  • Options
    #41
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭LadyAthame


    facing_west wrote: »
    well then it was nice chatting , good day
    It wasn't nice. You leave first.


  • Options
    #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.....


  • Options
    #44
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Adamantium
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭LadyAthame


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Aren't most family lawyers con artists? The whole thing is a con.
    Well :-/


  • Options
    #51
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    If pre nups had been legal when I got married I would have had one. I brought more to the table than he did, I worked hard for it, I earned it, it's mine. It's nothing to do with love or trust but marriage doesn't always last and you gotta protect yourself.


  • Options
    #53
    facing_west
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 20 ✭facing_west


    LadyAthame wrote: »
    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.

    you drag in inflammatory language like " hating women and mysoginy " yet im the one being unreasonable

    i dont hate women , i hate the poisonous idealogy which is feminism , the one which believes women should always be the benifactor in any given circumstance at any given time


  • Options
    #54
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    LadyAthame wrote: »
    You realize i agree with recognizing pre-nups right? read my first post.
    I wasn't really disagreeing with you and was really just underlining that statistics and legal biases aside, the problem is with entitlement rather than gender.

    But I do think that the reason that they've become such an issue is that the whole institution of marriage is broken - it's a temporary institution masquerading as a permanent one. Unless this is addressed, and marriage seriously reformed, I suspect that it will decline over the next few decades.


  • Options
    #55
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    eviltwin wrote: »
    If pre nups had been legal when I got married I would have had one. I brought more to the table than he did, I worked hard for it, I earned it, it's mine. It's nothing to do with love or trust but marriage doesn't always last and you gotta protect yourself.

    It can work the other way too....to the non bread winner. As in, an agreement built in, you hit me, you strike me, you rape me, you demean me, you cheat on me.... I want a [insert amount] so I can leave you freely and without obstacle.

    I will retain full custody of any children born into this marriage.....

    I will secure half of anything you earn for the duration of the marriage.... etc...


  • Options
    #56
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭LadyAthame


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    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.
    I agree THAT is a perfectly rational explanation for having one. 'All wimmin is bitches bro' is not.

    And if you do suspect that of your future spouse not even the hardest most recognized pre nup in the world would make getting married a good idea. Not even if you were certain she would walk away with nothing. It would be a terrible marriage.
    Don't think knowing they would walk with nothing would protect you from being damaged.

    Get one they are a good idea, for the right reasons and with the right attitude. Or don't get married.


  • Options
    #57
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    It can work the other way too....to the non bread winner. As in, an agreement built in, you hit me, you strike me, you rape me, you demean me, you cheat on me.... I want a [insert amount] so I can leave you freely and without obstacle.
    I think you need to read up on contract law - in particular with regard to unenforceable agreements.


  • Options
    #58
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭LadyAthame


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    It can work the other way too....to the non bread winner. As in, an agreement built in, you hit me, you strike me, you rape me, you demean me, you cheat on me.... I want a [insert amount] so I can leave you freely and without obstacle.

    I will retain full custody of any children born into this marriage.....

    I will secure half of anything you earn for the duration of the marriage.... etc...
    ...
    Exactly.


  • Options
    #59
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    it's a temporary institution masquerading as a permanent one

    It seems more like the reverse. Marriages don't last forever any more but strangely the financial obligations they create do.


  • Options
    #60
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    It can work the other way too....to the non bread winner. As in, an agreement built in, you hit me, you strike me, you rape me, you demean me, you cheat on me.... I want a [insert amount] so I can leave you freely and without obstacle.

    I will retain full custody of any children born into this marriage.....

    I will secure half of anything you earn for the duration of the marriage.... etc...

    That I agree with too. My husband and myself believe in the event of our marriage ending due to unreasonable behaviour the person in the wrong should be the one to leave but it's harder to stick to that where emotions are concerned.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    eviltwin wrote: »
    That I agree with too. My husband and myself believe in the event of our marriage ending due to unreasonable behaviour the person in the wrong should be the one to leave but it's harder to stick to that where emotions are concerned.

    Lol especially when 95% of the time no one thinks they are wrong...everyone has their reasons....


Advertisement