As a dude, I'm scared to get married

[-=::[Eagle-Vision]::=-]

Regarding women "refuse" to "marry down," the consequence of their partner preferences is that they are just going to have a harder time finding someone. That's on them for their choice in what they want to find in a partner. It's their fault if they can't find someone.

Similarly, if a guy gets married and chooses a partner based on <reasons> that end up him having to pay alimony and child support...well that's on him. The result of his partner characteristic choices. No one is forcing him to marry a lower paid, primary child caretaker. If he wants to avoid that then he can marry someone that has her own career and doesn't plan on giving it up.

Or if a woman marries a man and chooses to be the primary child caretaker, well that's on her. Nobody is forcing her to give up her career.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

1. Dont marry a fuckhead

2. Dont be rich

3. Grow Up

 

[UraMallas]

It seems to me that a lot of you guys sound young and severely underestimate the roles of mother, wife, housewife, and a lot of those traditional woman's role in a family structure. All because it's harder to quantify versus straight up wage from wage earners. This is why society generally underpay social care roles dominated by women because I see this is how guys think. Yes it is important to protect your assets but you can't just straight up say, well, I'm learning 30k and she's earning only 15k so it's not fair to give my half of the assets to her or something. I know it's tempting, but your significant others should have an effect on your more than just mere wages. It is a shame divorce rate is as high as it is, but that's a two way street. Both sides are screwed when a divorce happened. Who is happy during a divorce, honestly ? Both have sacrificed a portion of their lives to try to commit to one another. I'm not against the idea of a prenup, but I think it's a shame you guys sound so skeptical about marriage and just don't sound like YOU yourself don't want to commit. However, you place the blame on mistrusting women.

Are you a woman? This post reads to me like you are defending and projecting.

I am not young and I don't mistrust women - I mistrust people. If the right girl comes along I would be more than happy to spend large amounts of my time with her but I'm not going to mix financials with her. I find it irrational to rely on another person for something so important.

1. Dont marry a fuckhead

2. Dont be rich

3. Grow Up

lol.

If only it were so easy!

A lot of guys fear marriage and the statistics/horror stories don't help. Fact is, marriage doesn't make sense for a lot of people, and it doesn't have to. I get where you're coming from and you're absolutely right that divorce laws don't make a lot of sense today.

Constantly agonizing over your money isn't conducive to a healthy relationship, though, and can possibly cause you to miss out on great women. You're ultimately speaking from a place of insecurity and/or fear of consequences that, while possible, have yet to be realized.

Just enjoy being the eligible bachelor and keep an eye out for red flags. Worry about marriage later, when you think the possibility might be there - that's when you can put these things under the microscope, preferably with her (because you should be able to discuss these things with your future wife).

Good post.

 

[Bay Maximus]

I think for men with actual options, marriage is usually going to be pretty nerve-wracking. If you've got the best person you can realistically get, or even better you really lucked out, it becomes an easier pill to swallow. Just look around you, it's obvious.

 

[Guerilla]

Constantly agonizing over your money isn't conducive to a healthy relationship, though, and can possibly cause you to miss out on great women. You're ultimately speaking from a place of insecurity and/or fear of consequences that, while possible, have yet to be realized.

Isn't that way of thinking kind of irresponsible though? What's the lesson here? Don't think of the consequences because they might not happen?

 

[hurricanes]

Or if a woman marries a man and chooses to be the primary child caretaker, well that's on her. Nobody is forcing her to give up her career.

Lol. Women don't just chose to give up their career to become a free caretaker. Good luck pursuing any woman in the states to give up her careerif the marriage law doesn't cover spousal support. Marriage and (having) children are never one person's decision, unless he/she is a single parent.

I am really surprised you last this long here.

 

[Mango Positive]

I love being married. Just passed the 11 year mark and celebrated by having our first child:

Best toy ever! You totally get used to the poop.

Neither the wife nor I had ever had a relationship last more than 4 months before we started dating. That was 15 years ago. I'm glad it wasn't scary for us. I have no trust issues with her, we both love concerts and camping, and we both share a similar world view that is based on honesty and reason. We got married on the beach in St. Lucia. I did not wear shoes. Her dress cost her $80. It's about finding the right one. I was definitely lucky, but I think too many people settle for "good enough".

 

[Your Entertainer]

It's going to depend on the state that you live in and whether or not your spouse is capable of living independently, on the wage she earns.



If there's a disparity in income, the tax benefits may be significant. This was the tipping point for me. My husband and I have been together for several years, but only recently got married. In our case, I earn significantly more than him. We threw tens of thousands of dollars away over the years, from not being married.

Thanks for the reply. The tax benefits sound enormous.

For the scenario, let's say I earn 450k and she earns 65k. Regardless of what the laws say, state by state, would it be fair that she gets some of my money upon splitting? Would any sort of alimony be fair? In the state where you live, would she?

 

[God Dayumm]

I do it for the formality of tax breaks and legal benefits of being classified as married. Being married shouldn't change the relationship, but I may as well take advantage of the benefits from being classified as such.

If you do it simply for the fiscal benefits, then you have to consider whether these outweight the financial loss in a possible divorce.

 

[racketpunch]

As for your scenario.. I don't know, I'm not your wife or lawyer or judge. That kind of shit is something I'd talk about with my partner, not pose as a hypothetical on a random internet forum for video game enthusiasts, given that it's a personalized situation with many different variables.

Good shit. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Your Entertainer]

As for your scenario.. I don't know, I'm not your wife or lawyer or judge. That kind of shit is something I'd talk about with my partner, not pose as a hypothetical on a random internet forum for video game enthusiasts, given that it's a personalized situation with many different variables.

Uh, we're on a discussion forum. To, you know, discuss stuff. Which you've repeatedly decided not to do for this particular question. No one's my wife, lawyer or judge. This is, by design a hypothetical.

We're taking the variables out of it here - is it fair that she gets something? If you don't want to discuss it, no one's forcing you to.

 

[Takuan]

Isn't that way of thinking kind of irresponsible though? What's the lesson here? Don't think of the consequences because they might not happen?

I'm not advising to ignore that element entirely, just not to let it drive his attitude toward marriage at this point in his life.

@OP, It's not fair at all, but that's besides the point. It's law.

 

[Keri]

For the scenario, let's say I earn 450k and she earns 65k. Regardless of what the laws say, state by state, would it be fair that she gets some of my money upon splitting? Would any sort of alimony be fair? In the state where you live, would she?

Well, in the state that I live in, it would depend on multiple factors and the Court has discretion in determining the figure. Which probably sounds scary to you, but keep in mind: "The goal of spousal or partner support is that the spouse or partner getting support will be able to support himself or herself within a reasonable period of time." (Quoted from my state court website).The idea isn't to award the lower income spouse with a lottery-like bonus. The idea is to give them temporary assistance to get back on their feet.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of spousal support and I say that as the higher earner in my relationship. Yes, it's true that the higher your income and the greater the income disparity, the higher the spousal support will likely be. But, realistically, spousal support is unlikely to financially ruin you. The higher earner will still be better off, in the long run, than the lower earner.

 

[Dusk Golem]

My stance is simple; Don't get married to be married or you feel you have to or be pressured into it or anything, only get married if you spend years with someone, and probably should try living together for a few years beforehand as well, and then if you and they decide you both want to spend the rest of your lives together, go get hitched.

Simple and done.

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

[... changes for the worse ...] Older colleagues joke all the time about not getting laid while you're married, or getting laid much, much less too. haha.

Did this get addressed or did it get lost in the money talk?

This is a function of being with the same person for sufficient time and letting it happen. Living with someone changes a relationship and you have to work to keep the passion alive, which is hopefully very easy to do when you only see each other a few times a week.

15 years into a relationship and still happily unmarried (and not in the US). Just embarked on year 8 of living together. We have changed, but we were 19/20 when we got together and who doesn't over that time? Mostly we've just matured.

Anyway, if you're this concerned about money, bring it up early on in a relationship and see what happens— how do you find women that fit what you want? you filter.

I AM surrounded by nurses though, and I have to say damn there are some attractive women in that pool.

Keep in mind that marrying someone just because they're hot is probably going to lead to discovering how this divorce thing works. Everyone gets ugly eventually...

As a man, I've never dated a woman that would be comfortable with having a house husband or SAHD. Even for high flying career women, it's pretty engrained that a man must contribute financially.

My partner doesn't want me to do the SAHD thing because my earning potential is higher than what we'd save on paying for child care— and her income is over 50% higher than mine so she sure as shit isn't staying home (also: she hates children).

 

[IISANDERII]

I don't see the problem with marriage financially if you marry someone rational enough to know that hammering out a pre-nup is a good self-protection for both parties. If you do that you get to enjoy the legal and financial benefits of marriage with no stress about the fallout.

Someone insisting on NOT having a prenup would be a huuuge red flag for me. I would think they either have an unrealistic view of marriage, a lack of long term planning, or unscrupulous motives.

But people change over time.

 

[-=::[Eagle-Vision]::=-]

Lol. Women don't just chose to give up their career to become a free caretaker. Good luck pursuing any woman in the states to give up her careerif the marriage law doesn't cover spousal support. Marriage and (having) children are never one person's decision, unless he/she is a single parent.

I am really surprised you last this long here.

They don't choose? Whose putting a gun to their heads to force them into that arrangement?

Don't deny women their agency.

 

[CornBurrito]

Or if a woman marries a man and chooses to be the primary child caretaker, well that's on her. Nobody is forcing her to give up her career.

Or if a man marries a woman and they collectively decide that he will be the primary breadwinner while she will be the primary caretaker, well that's on them. Nobody is forcing them to make that decision. The law then makes provisions for the woman in this scenario because of the damage to her life long earning potential. If the man made the decision to be primary caretaker, he would ideally be awarded some form of alimony.

 

[Marty Chinn]

If you do it simply for the fiscal benefits, then you have to consider whether these outweight the financial loss in a possible divorce.

There will always be financial loss risk in the potential outcome of a divorce. So do you just leave money on the table for something that might never happen? It's a terrible outlook to already be banking on the divorce. Sure you don't ignore the possibility, but it should only be one of many factors taken into consideration. I don't think daily, what if this doesn't last. I also didn't rush into my marriage to make sure I picked the right person. Too many people rush in or go in for the wrong reasons and that's why it doesn't end up working out. Plenty of divorces could be avoided if people were more practical in other areas other than fiscally when considering marriage.

 

[hurricanes]

They don't choose? Whose putting a gun to their heads to force them into that arrangement?

Don't deny women their agency.

That's a agreement not a one sided desicion of one person. The arrangement includes spousal support in the case of the marriage doesn't work out, if you don't agree with it, get a pre nup stating you won't pay spousal support at all and good luck getting your significant other to give up her career.

 

[-=::[Eagle-Vision]::=-]

That's a agreement not a one sided desicion of one person. The arrangement includes spousal support in the case of the marriage doesn't work out, if you don't agree with it, get a pre nup stating you won't pay spousal support at all and good luck getting your significant other to give up her career.

For a woman it makes perfect sense to get married and drop her career. She gets taken care during the marriage and if it ends (no matter who ends it) she gets a paycheck, even if she spent all her time sitting on her ass watching TV.

For a man, it makes no sense at all to get married.

 

[CornBurrito]

For a woman it makes perfect sense to get married and drop her career. She gets taken care during the marriage and if it ends (no matter who ends it) she gets a paycheck, even if she spent all her time sitting on her ass watching TV.

For a man, it makes no sense at all to get married.

lol. You make it sound like child rearing and homemaking are a breeze.

Can you prove this btw? Can you show that is is generally the case where the male was the primary caretaker and remained the primary caretaker, and yet had to pay alimony? Because ideally the person paying alimony is the person who didn't give up their career to be homemaker/caretaker.

 

[-=::[Eagle-Vision]::=-]

lol. You make it sound like child rearing and homemaking are a breeze.

That depends on the amount of effort used.

Can you prove this btw? Can you show that is is generally the case where the male was the primary caretaker and remained the primary caretaker, and yet had to pay alimony? Because ideally the person paying alimony is the person who didn't give up their career to be homemaker/caretaker.

Generally the case is that women either marry men who make more than they do or drop their careers to become housewives. So save very few exceptions, the man pays.

 

[hurricanes]

For a woman it makes perfect sense to get married and drop her career. She gets taken care during the marriage and if it ends (no matter who ends it) she gets a paycheck, even if she spent all her time sitting on her ass watching TV.

For a man, it makes no sense at all to get married.

Well then don't ask your wife to become a housewife and share half of every house chores and duties, and get a pre nup. Plenty of women now a day love that! Who doesn't want a successful, fulfilling career?

 

[Dr. Black Jack]

I don't have the patience to wade through eight pages of block quotes to respond to anything in particular but my wife and I talk about this regularly, so here goes.

All "marriage" is is a piece of paper and a change in legal status to combine two legal entities into oneish. If that makes sense to your financials/family, great. If it doesn't then don't or, if you can do it maturely, discuss a prenup.

True companionship has nothing to do with "marriage". You have to trust each other enough to make a long term relationship last. That's it. You don't have to agree about everything/never fight, you don't have to combine finances, you don't even have to live together. The emotional bond of trust is the main thing.

If you're looking at marriage in terms of how much money you're going to lose when it falls apart then you don't understand true emotional intimacy enough to make that decision in the first place.

 

[Eppy Thatcher]

You can't possibly know what the future holds for you.

At one time I was engaged to a brilliant lady who wanted a career and a kid or two, to be a doctor or a surgeon, was going to school to that end, had family money behind her decisions and was a strong headed, razor sharp witted, amazingly fucking gorgeous go-getter who would laugh at the most hilariously absurb and dark jokes and so on and so forth.

In the past 3-4 years she has changed almost completely as a person because of an illness and a few extremely damaging decisions/lifestyle choices she made which have taken our relationship to a place that there really is no coming back from. We are still and probably always will be friends but figuring out how to pull your life apart from someone after so long and especially after marriage - with insurance/medical/child/house ect. ect. is hard. No two ways about it. It sucks.

This is the truth of it. You simply cannot know what someone else will do/become/believe whatever in the future. It's your gamble that you take. "I will love this person and stay with them forever no matter WHO they are in 10-20-30 years time"

It's a hell of a slim bet. Better people than me have tried and failed. And yet - "worse" people than me have tried and made it work.

Relationships. Fuck.

 

[CornBurrito]

Generally the case is that women either marry men who make more than they do or drop their careers to become housewives. So save very few exceptions, the man pays.

Except see my previous post: "Or if a man marries a woman and they collectively decide that he will be the primary breadwinner while she will be the primary caretaker, well that's on them. Nobody is forcing them to make that decision. The law then makes provisions for the woman in this scenario because of the damage to her life long earning potential. If the man made the decision to be primary caretaker, he would ideally be awarded some form of alimony."

If men always have to pay alimony, even if they were the ones to drop their career to become primary taker, then the law would be unfair. The law is completely fair if the caretaker is rewarded alimony, whether the caretaker is male or female.

As you say, nobody is forcing the man to be the primary breadwinner.

 

[Relativ9]

Eh marriage is overrated, I know couples who have been together for over 15 years with kids and everything who haven't even considered getting married. It's a dying meaingless institution in countries where domestic partnerships get all the same rights and benifits without all the pitfalls and religious bullshit.

But then in my country (Norway) being a stay at home parent isn't really a thing, everyone works.

 

[CornBurrito]

Eh marriage is overrated, I know couples who have been together for over 15 years with kids and everything who haven't even considered getting married. It's a dying meaingless institution in countries where domestic partnerships get all the same rights and benifits without all the pitfalls and religious bullshit.

But then in my country (Norway) being a stay at home parent isn't really a thing, everyone works.

It isn't meaningless. Unless you want to play "it has no meaning other than that which we arbitrarily give it" in which case what isn't meaningless?

 

[Relativ9]

It isn't meaningless. Unless you want to play "it has no meaning other than that which we arbitrarily give it" in which case what isn't meaningless?

Sustenance? Reproduction? Survival?

Point being, as a society we're slowly but surely stripping away all the practical reasons for getting married. While not stripping away the impractical reasons for not getting married. So unless you're into the religious thing (which most marrying age westerners arent), there really isn't much of a point to getting married anymore.

 

[-=::[Eagle-Vision]::=-]

Well then don't ask your wife to become a housewife and share half of every house chores and duties, and get a pre nup. Plenty of women now a day love that! Who doesn't want a successful, fulfilling career?

Assuming it's the husband who asks for it. If they both decide to continue their careers but after they get married the woman changes her mind and decides to be a housewife, what can the guy do?

As discussed previously, prenups are worthless.

Except see my previous post: "Or if a man marries a woman and they collectively decide that he will be the primary breadwinner while she will be the primary caretaker, well that's on them. Nobody is forcing them to make that decision. The law then makes provisions for the woman in this scenario because of the damage to her life long earning potential. If the man made the decision to be primary caretaker, he would ideally be awarded some form of alimony."

If men always have to pay alimony, even if they were the ones to drop their career to become primary taker, then the law would be unfair. The law is completely fair if the caretaker is rewarded alimony, whether the caretaker is male or female.

As you say, nobody is forcing the man to be the primary breadwinner.

See the example above.

Are you serious?

Do you mean to come off like a redpiller? Do you realize how incredibly insulting this is to women everywhere?

You can call me names or address my arguments. Your choice.

 

[CornBurrito]

Sustenance? Reproduction? Survival?

Point being, as a society we're slowly but surely stripping away all the practical reasons for getting married. While not stripping away the impractical reasons for not getting married. So unless you're into the religious thing (which most marrying age westerners arent), there really isn't much of a point to getting married anymore.

Actually none of those have meaning other than what you give it. Unless you think life has inherent meaning. In which case, prove it.

See the example above.

You've actually not once countered my argument. If a man decided to be the primary caretaker and the woman was the primary breadwinner, the law would award him alimony in the event of a divorce. That's my claim. You haven't refuted it. You've just kept asserting that somehow it will be the greedy womyn who decides to become the caretaker and then divorce to get $$$$$.

 

[LucidMomentum]

I feel like the argument about the financials of marriage in these past few threads has boiled down to the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoqZutsd1m0

 

[hurricanes]

Assuming it's the husband who asks for it. If they both decide to continue their careers but after they get married the woman changes her mind and decides to be a housewife, what can the guy do?

As discussed previously, prenups are worthless.

The wife cannot just "change her mind" and have a kid without discussion with her husband just like the husband cannot suddenly demand his wife to quite her job and be a housewife. Marriage doesn't work like that.

Pre nups are not worthless when you consult legal service and get a legit one. Not "hey you don't get my money if we spilt. Sign:_____"

 

[cwmartin]

I think somebody has been watching a little too much CW and it's influencing how he thinks marriages exist across the United States.

 

[CornBurrito]

The wife cannot just "change her mind" and have a kid without discussion with her husband just like the husband cannot suddenly demand his wife to quite her job and be a housewife. Marriage doesn't work like that.

Pre nups are not worthless when you consult legal service and get a legit one. Not "hey you don't get my money if we spilt. Sign:_____"

Actually I'm pretty sure women can get pregnant with no input from a man at all. They just have to focus hard enough.

 

[gaiages]

For a woman it makes perfect sense to get married and drop her career. She gets taken care during the marriage and if it ends (no matter who ends it) she gets a paycheck, even if she spent all her time sitting on her ass watching TV.

For a man, it makes no sense at all to get married.

Hahaha woooooow holy shit

Assuming it's the husband who asks for it. If they both decide to continue their careers but after they get married the woman changes her mind and decides to be a housewife, what can the guy do?

As discussed previously, prenups are worthless.

They could have a civil talk, like adults! What a revolutionary mindset, I know. But I guess mentally immature people get married all the time, so I'm not too surprised something like communicating with your husband/wife is such an alien concept.

And prenups are supposed to be legally binding, btw

 

[Mossybrew]

Relationships. Fuck.

Well said, good post.

 

[CornBurrito]

Does anyone else hate when they marry a woman and she ends up being a golddigger who steals your semen in the middle of the night so that she can impregnate herself without permission in order to give up her career and become a "care taker" (which like isnt even a real job idk why cleaning services and day care providers expect to be payed) so that she can later divorce you and take half your shit even though you signed a prenup?

Happens to me so often lol.

 

[Prost]

For a woman it makes perfect sense to get married and drop her career. She gets taken care during the marriage and if it ends (no matter who ends it) she gets a paycheck, even if she spent all her time sitting on her ass watching TV.

For a man, it makes no sense at all to get married.

This is misogynistic crap, like most of your other posts.

 

[CornBurrito]

Eagle Vision completely ignores gay men and lesbian woman in his equation.

Do both women win in a lesbian marriage since they both get to fuck over the other out of all their stuff?

Do both men lose in a gay marriage since they both have to pay each other child support and alimony?

 

[synchronicity]

I didn't get married until 33 ... 48 now. Love my wife of 15 years, love our kids, love the life we've built together. But there isn't a day that goes by that I don't struggle with the married life. What can I say, I'm a loner Dottie. A rebel.

You sound like me. I married @ 29, and am now 46, but I'm certainly a loner at heart. I love my wife and son so much, but family life, if I'm completely honest with myself, is a bit contrary to my deepest nature.

Having said that, I would struggle in some ways without them, after all these years. But I certainly don't fit the stereotypical profile of a family man.

And to the OP, I would just say do your best to choose carefully if you choose to marry. Find a giving, kindhearted person and don't worry too much. You could still get screwed in the end. Life has lots of moving parts and hoping to predict how everything will play out shouldn't be an impediment to you living your life. If you get screwed, you get screwed. It happens to many a good guy/gal.

 

[Sijil]

As a dude I would love to get married, but with the amount of money I make and the fact that I have to take care of my mother and sister, I don't think any self respecting woman would take me.

Marriage isn't as horrifying as you would think, just depends on your partner.

 

[John Caboose]

I'm kind of scared about marriage I guess (23/M/Sweden), but that's mostly because I don't see a lot of advantages but a lot of new rules and regulations and expectations. I don't worry about it though as I don't have a significant other at the moment.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Well, in the state that I live in, it would depend on multiple factors and the Court has discretion in determining the figure. Which probably sounds scary to you, but keep in mind: "The goal of spousal or partner support is that the spouse or partner getting support will be able to support himself or herself within a reasonable period of time." (Quoted from my state court website).The idea isn't to award the lower income spouse with a lottery-like bonus. The idea is to give them temporary assistance to get back on their feet.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of spousal support and I say that as the higher earner in my relationship. Yes, it's true that the higher your income and the greater the income disparity, the higher the spousal support will likely be. But, realistically, spousal support is unlikely to financially ruin you. The higher earner will still be better off, in the long run, than the lower earner.

Why would someone who made 65k/year in a stable job need any sort of assistance to "get back on their feet"? Not trying to argue; I'm legitimately wondering what the justification is there.

 

[-=::[Eagle-Vision]::=-]

You've actually not once countered my argument. If a man decided to be the primary caretaker and the woman was the primary breadwinner, the law would award him alimony in the event of a divorce. That's my claim. You haven't refuted it. You've just kept asserting that somehow it will be the greedy womyn who decides to become the caretaker and then divorce to get $$$$$.

"Of the 400,000 people in the United States receiving post-divorce spousal maintenance, just 3 percent were men, according to Census figures. Yet 40 percent of households are headed by female breadwinners — suggesting that hundreds of thousands of men are eligible for alimony, yet don’t receive it."

"...a female vice president of a giant Bay area technology company divorcing an unemployed tire store worker who was seeking alimony. Despite the dramatic discrepancy in income, she fought and no support was awarded"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/

The wife cannot just "change her mind" and have a kid without discussion with her husband just like the husband cannot suddenly demand his wife to quite her job and be a housewife. Marriage doesn't work like that.

They have sex, protection fails, she gets pregnant, decides to keep the child, decides to be a housewife.

Or, they both decide to have a child but she will continue to be engaged in her career, she gets pregnant, has the baby, changes her mind, stays a housewife.

Pre nups are not worthless when you consult legal service and get a legit one. Not "hey you don't get my money if we spilt. Sign:_____"

"A divorce judge will first look at whether the prenuptial agreement is unfair as compared to what the court would do without the agreement. For example, has one of the spouses given up property or alimony rights that would have been available during a divorce without the existence of a prenuptial agreement? If there is a significant difference in what the court would do with and without the existence of the agreement, then the court can determine that the agreement is unfair."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stann-givens/when-a-prenup-gets-thrown_b_5542093.html

I'm not risking it.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

::=-;184282505]You can call me names or address my arguments. Your choice.

Arguments? What arguments?

 

[hurricanes]

They have sex, protection fails, she gets pregnant, decides to keep the child, decides to be a housewife.

Or, they both decide to have a child but she will continue to be engaged in her career, she gets pregnant, has the baby, changes her mind, stays a housewife.

Both uncommon scenarios still involve a discussion and a agreement.

"A divorce judge will first look at whether the prenuptial agreement is unfair as compared to what the court would do without the agreement. For example, has one of the spouses given up property or alimony rights that would have been available during a divorce without the existence of a prenuptial agreement? If there is a significant difference in what the court would do with and without the existence of the agreement, then the court can determine that the agreement is unfair."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stann-givens/when-a-prenup-gets-thrown_b_5542093.html

I'm not risking it.

There is nothing wrong with your quote and a legit pre nup should cover this possible dispute well. If you don't believe it that's on you.

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

Why would someone who made 65k/year in a stable job need any sort of assistance to "get back on their feet"? Not trying to argue; I'm legitimately wondering what the justification is there.

At least in Canada it is about quality of life: if the 65k's ex made 500k, he or she may have expenses way too large for 65k-- if so, the support period would allow those to be reduced to manageable, affordable expenses. At similar income levels this is less likely to be the case.

 

[MrGerbils]

They have sex, protection fails, she gets pregnant, decides to keep the child, decides to be a housewife.

Or, they both decide to have a child but she will continue to be engaged in her career, she gets pregnant, has the baby, changes her mind, stays a housewife.

My brother and his wife decided to have a child, both were going to keep up their career, but after having the baby he decided to be a stay at home dad... Can you believe, they actually made that decision together, like adults who love each other, have committed to share the rest of their lives together, and are capable of communication??

In any of your examples where a woman just "becomes a housewife" a husband could become a house husband too. So maybe you should get married so you can just magic become a house husband and enjoy the free ride, because that's exactly how it works.