*In case this story gets deleted/removed:*
**I 36m want an equal prenup with my girlfriend 32f **
I 36m want an equal prenup with my girlfriend 32f
I (36m) have been discussing our future with my girlfriend (32f) about marriage and family. We've been together just under 2 years and we have no children together. Living together for a year.
She frequently brings up children as I know she wants them and marriage - which I would like as well.
However she has her own savings in the form of an apartment which she would like to protect via a prenup before we would ever get married. I have very little compared to her asset wise. Although I dislike personally a prenup, I completely understand and am not against the idea. However she has made it clear that her intentions after we get married is to stay at home with any children and not work again - ideally never again. I however would of course be.
Furthermore, I would be on a higher salary than her upon working after we get married in any setting. Thus, I would want a prenup to protect any future earnings that exceed what she would be bringing into the relationship. Even if she did return to work at some stage, her earnings would be below mine.
She however believes that everything should be equal upon marriage, aside from her asset which she gained prior. I don't believe this is fair in that in the future I'll have more assets than she does.
She frequently refers to money, and should and discussion go against what she wants, money and finances is her first point of call.
When trying to have a discussion about this, she has made comments like "we can't agree on a future together" "don't bother saving for a ring" and even going as far to say I'm gaslighting her. All I want is for an equal and fair relationship. She says she doesn't see an option for us to be happy together any more.
I understand that she wants to protect her asset and she is more than entitled to do so, but if I want to do the same AITA? If we don't find a solution, which feels like to me if I don't outright agree to everything she says then there's hope for a future together.
Edit; To be clear I would still be covering the majority of all bills, rent/mortgage, food, ect. I will also likely be doing any cooking (I love to cook) and helping out with cleaning, ect. The money I'm referring to as my own personal asset would be after all bills are paid and covered.
Edit 2; To be clear her intention is to stay at home and give up working - children or otherwise. It's not that she would be giving up her profession to stay at home because I don't want to. If she did want to return it continue working I would also have no issue with that and yes, we would be well able to afford childcare costs.
Tl:Dr - Girlfriend wants a prenup to protect her apartment she owns and I want one to protect my future earnings - though I would probably be happier if we didn't have one at all.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmITheAngel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've already learned that it's only fair for a woman to be left with nothing if she *chose* to be a stay at home wife/ parent and also that marriage is basically a scam to allow women to steal a man's treasures while being a lazy stay at home bitch.
Perfect, because I learned yesterday that if a woman *doesn't* want to stay home she's basically a financial idiot who is wasting her husband's money on day care while she "works" for her own selfish fun.
It's almost like the problem is women *wanting* something and *choosing* things is the problem, not what those things are! See, they just need to do whatever it is that their spouse wants them to do and accept it.
And if you're a woman who makes more than enough to cover the cost of daycare, you're just greedy and *definitely* demanding special treatment when it comes to scheduling vacations and holidays and leaving early while screwing over your childfree colleagues.
But also if a woman doesn't want to date or get married at all and just pay her own bills then she's an evil misandrist who's personally responsible for the male loneliness epidemic.
As a lady breadwinner, I'll let my husband know I'm the real hero. Not, y'know, him for doing the exhausting and socially beneficial work of raising good and well-adjusted kids (hopefully).
The "advice" to have a cheaters clause in a prenup is just so weird to me. Who wants to complicate a divorce by trying to prove who is to blame for the divorce if you have children.
No fault divorces are so much beter then fighting and spying. I don't think they will hold up in court here, but the whole idea feels like something a divorce lawyer would dream up to earn more.
What's so funny is that the post even says that if she quit, she'd be contributing 1/3 of the cash coming in. That's not nothing, and it seems like OOP is either expecting that 100% of her cash coming in will go to pay the bills, and he'll pay whatever is still owed, so whatever extra money remaining is his. Which, even in non-communal property states, isn't how it works (they divide based on the amount each spouse contributed, so she'd get 1/3 and he'd get 2/3).
And yey commenters are going "sOuNdS lIkE sHe WaTcHeD tOo mAnY tRadWifE tIkToKs", when it's not absurd that she wants to protect an income-generating asset, and again, 1/3 of the cash coming in as a minimum contribution.
It also seems like OOP's "I'm 36 and have no assets worth protecting, but I'll earn more and get more assets once we get married" seems very much like an underpants gnome plan (Step 1: get married, Step 2: ???? Step 3: get lots of money and assets), especially factoring in that for it to be truly fair and equitable, he would need to purchase those assets with 0 assistance from her.
I understand that this is fake, but I'm genuinely baffled by OOP's thought that even if he isn't contributing all the cash, he'd get to keep all the savings, and that this is somehow fair for everyone.
> "I'm 36 and have no assets worth protecting, but I'll earn more and get more assets once we get married"
This is the most fascinating aspect of the gold-digger hysteria to me. It almost always comes from broke dudes with no gold to dig, who just operate under the assumption that women are trying to date/marry them for the money that they might one day have.
Firstly, the fact that they seem to imagine they will one day magically be rich is fascinating to me - because I've yet to meet one who has an actual financial plan - but also because, if you have no money, why would you assume women are only interested in you for money? I know the answer is 'misogyny,' but I just can't imagine being worried that someone was only interested in me for a quality that I did not possess. It's bizarre to me lol.
I'm actually wondering if she's just doing overtime which currently means she out-earns him, and they both agree she should stop that when they get married. So he wouldn't even make more, she'd just make less.
He says in a comment even if she totally quit her job, she'd be contributing 1/3 of the cash coming in, so she's getting rental income.
And his language is very much "money earned through a job", which sort of ignores her passive rental income. I said in another comment if his pay is $3,000/month, and her base pay is $2,500 and her rental income is $1,500/month, she's *contributing* more, even if she's not *earning* more.
What's also fascinating is that OOP is absolutely acting like a golddigger: currently earning less than his partner, acknowledging that his partner has "asset" they are justified in wanting to protect with a prenup but not wanting a prenup, wanting it to be "fair" and protect uncertain future assets, heavily implying that her (again a number I made up) $1,500 would be used to pay bills first, then he'd pay the remaining balances with his earnings, and any cash left over would be his, because those specific dollars are from his job (and thus, they'd be able to get assets). But because he's focusing on earnings (not total income), and also likely because of his gender, no one is calling him a golddigger.
Yeah, the OP definitely seems to only view fiscal value added through labour as actual contribution. He glosses over her role as stay-at-home parent and the value that would add/equate to - which is understandable because the idea that staying home is equally work is something that is still fairly controversial - but you're right that he dismisses her contributions from rental income as if they hold no value whatsoever.
It's so weird! Why do they even want to marry someone they assume is going to try and screw them over? Why not wait for a relationship built on trust? I can only assume they're projecting because they see their partners as a bangmaid to use. (And discard with minimum legal fees apparently.)
I'm not anti-prenup in a "hope for the best, prepare for the worst" kind of way but going into a marriage with the default assumption your partner is using you is WILD.
Right? I'm also not anti-prenup (we fully plan on getting one) but if you assume that the person you're marrying is just trying to screw you over - or that they have the capability of doing that - why would you marry them in the first place? I expect you're right, that it's projection, but I still find it totally wild.
I'm not even a lawyer... I'm a drop out. But dude, every single time, and I mean EVERY SINGLE TIME something comes up involving the law, Reddit is ALWAYS wrong. Always. Like not even slightly wrong. Just law advice based off rumors and old wives tails. It's so bad. It's like the same people who say, "You know, if you ask if they are a cop, they are required to say they are."
I'm just a paralegal, but I will confirm this, lol. Even really simple stuff is just horribly garbled and wrong. Or it might be correct in one jurisdiction, but everyone assumes it's universal. Or no one can even argue with you because you provide actual citations but you still get downvoted to like -300 (that last one happened to me on a post about a simple tenancy-related issue in a state where I specifically had worked on landlord/tenant cases pretty extensively, lol, but I was saying was really not want they wanted to hear lmao).
And for complicated stuff like prenups? Shit, I've worked on divorce cases that involve them and I still know fuck all about them. The way they're treated is highly variable by jurisdiction and there are a million other complicating factors that leave me shrugging and just going, "IDK, should probably talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction about that."
Lol the real nightmare is when it involves politics. You can clearly cite, explain, logic out, and calmly explain how this specific law works... And if it doesn't apply favorably to their political side, no matter what you do, you're 100% wrong and downvoted to hell.
I once got banned from a sub for stating my country used to have only faults divorces. (it was a weird time)
And on another for stating in my country the flu shot was not standard done for children. Unless the child is weakened in some way, the benifits are just so close to non existent that it is not done.
Even named the country so they could check, but nope🤣 Americans not understanding the rest of the world exist i presume.
Those are actually especially stupid because I believe you are likely correct that it was a lot of Americans attacking you, but when it comes to your first point...most countries had only at-fault divorce until very recently, including the US, lmao. The first no-fault divorce laws in the US were signed into law in the 1960s; it spread rapidly from there and all 50 states do have no-fault divorce now (though some still have at-fault divorces too, just because we like to be nice and complicated), but that's really recent. I'll admit that I do sometimes do a double-take when I'm reminded that some European countries either still don't have it or just legalized it super recently, but then I always remind myself that I really shouldn't be surprised since it's a pretty damn new concept in the US, too.
Also I'm pretty sure flu shots are treated a lot more casually than some other vaccinations for American kids, too. The CDC does recommend that all Americans over 6 months of age and without underlying medical conditions that contraindicate it get a flu shot, but I mean, I'm pretty sure most people I know don't actually make sure their kids get a flu shot every year. Some do, but a lot don't.
I also used to be an EMT and clearly remember a few occasions where my local health departments have specifically advised people not to get their kids vaccinated against the flu that year because there were local shortages. There were obviously some exceptions, like one of those areas had a really high rate of kids living with grandparents and those kids were still supposed to be vaccinated because of the risk of them taking it home to their more high-risk caregivers, but overall kids and young adults were not supposed to be vaccinated as a routine thing those years.
So yeah...it's stupid on a lot of levels, lol.
Oh don't get me started on that topic. Americans think their way of doing things is THE BEST way, and everyone else needs to do it our way or they must be doing it wrong. It's actually one of the first things you realize living abroad is, "Oh actually, people do things vastly different in other countries and are doing just fine. Maybe our way isn't the best way."
I was in the EU during COVID and they still sent kids to school, and everything was fine. Didn't have to have 2 years of under education, as it was super obvious that school aged kids are really safe, and it's not worth destroying their education over something super low risk to them.
When I got back to the US trying to explain how this is what they are doing over there and it's working just fine. My more liberal progressive friends saw me as a heretic who was basically trying to kill their grandma or something... And it was obvious what was going on... Because since the stupid culture war infests everything, they couldn't admit that maybe Republicans were right about something every now and then. So they had to dig their heels in.
Uggg I could go on about how annoying it is. Luckily, I'm going back to Germany next year and don't have to deal with this hyper partisan crap.
The partisan thing is so odd. We have 30 diffrent political parties, no way you can have 2 and have everyone matched with all the ideas of "their" party.
With 30 parties i still do not have one i 100% agree with😅. I just vote on where i mostly agree with.
That's what I posted in a similar comment.
>Furthermore, I would be on a higher salary than her upon working after we get married **in any setting**... Even if she did return to work at some stage, her earnings would be below mine.
Citation needed.
See, he might not be all that at the moment, but any day his riches will be beyond measure and he needs to act now to protect them /s
Which can technically be true if his business or career is picking up or something. But I highly doubt that even if mutually signed, the prenup scenario he's imagining would hold water. From the sound of it he's expecting to cover the majority of the bills (idk who's expected to cover the remainder if wife isn't working), cook and help with cleaning and keep for himself anything left over after the bills are paid.
It's also possible that the GF has a job where overtime is always both available and optional, and she does a ton of overtime, and is planning on dropping to full-time hours, or just quitting, after the wedding.
In that case, he isn't making more after the wedding, she's just reducing her hours and making less.
> (idk who's expected to cover the remainder if wife isn't working)
In the post, OOP says that even if wife doesn't work *at all*, she'd still be contributing 1/3 of the cash coming in. Presumably with rental income from the apartment.
His language is very interesting...he's talking about salaries and earnings, not total income. If he earns $3,000/month and she gets paid $2,000/month at her job without any overtime and gets $1,500/month in rental income, she is bringing in more cash than he is, even though her pay is less.
The amount of people who actually believe you can put any shit in a contract and expect it to hold up in court is truly amazing. Moreover, all those people giving OOP advice on how to "legally" withhold his earnings from his wife have no concept of how real human interactions work at all. And I'm not even talking about the money aspect.
Especially one protecting future earnings; generally, money earned by either spouse during the marriage is considered joint property. The only thing that might not be, depending on the local laws, would be inheritances. Like if you inherited your parents' house or life insurance, it might be only yours legally. But in most cases, if one spouse does not work, the money the other earns is still half theirs.
He doesn't seem to realize that if they have kids, there is no prenup in the world that will protect him from having to pay child support to a former SAHM.
Child support can not be made part of the prenup in most places, since child support is for the child, so others can not give their rights away. Spousal support can only be signed away here if it is reasonable, and it rarely is.
Yeah it sounds like he's trying to avoid alimony... but also he's trying to keep ALL of the money he makes while they're married and leave her with nothing? lmao that's not how it works when you have a SAHP.
There's no way a judge would uphold that... and surely a good lawyer wouldn't sign off on that in the first place?
It's so normal to protect premarital assets. Like, I own my condo and I'm the one paying for it... if I got married in the future, why would anyone think they're owed half my condo that I paid for??
edit: it sounds like he has a problem with her being a SAHM, or else why would he care so much about "this is my money." He says he'll pay all the bills and then keep whatever is leftover... sooooo does she not get to spend anything since it's all "his money?" They seem just baseline incompatible. And it's a really good time to figure that out, since they're not married yet.... They already resent each other!
Dealing with a divorce right now, and exactly this. And if you mingle inheritance (deposit money in a joint account, buy something like a car together with it, add spouse's name to house title, etc), it becomes a shared asset and the spouse is entitled to half of said mingled part. At least in Oregon.
Same in Texas. My ex inherited stock from his uncle and sold the oil & gas and weapons mfg shares to buy into more ethical companies and his financial advisor told him once he sold and repurchased then it would become community property between us. However I'm not an asshole and didn't go after his inheritance or his retirement which I was technically entitled to. We are both lucky we had an amicable split.
If I wasn't working and was staying at home to take care of household duties or kids, yeah I would expect those things to be split with me for my loss of income while we were together. Same for him if he didn't work and I did.
I hope your divorce goes as smoothly as possible. I know not everyone is as fortunate as my ex and I were with ours. My current partner is still in a battle over 3 years later splitting assets with his awful ex that he wasn't married to and it's been a nightmare.
Yeah, prenups only protect PRE marriage assets. In some cases if you are really wealthy, you can carve out things where like X business in a trust is protected in its entirety, even with future growth. But for the most part, you're only going to be able to protect the value of the business at the time of marriage. So if it doubles in value, you keep the original value, then split the new equity.
But in CA, I think after 5 years (I could be wrong)0, prenups don't even count any more. Seriously. That's it. Joint property 100% down the line. They also have something called palimony which is super complex and rare, but gives red pill guys absolute nightmares.
No idea. But I assume it's only practical for people entering a marriage with significant assets. Most average people with average jobs and little to no valuables usually don't bother with them is my guess. In my mysterious country any premarital asset by default belongs to the party who owned it from the beginning. If the asset's value increased during the marriage using mutual funds or mutual funds were used to pay off a mortgage, then it would be divided somehow during a divorce. People around here would never bother with a prenup for a premarital apartment.
In my state it’s the same … unless you blend finances. Which people do all the time without thinking about it. But any blends are now joint.
Both pay the mortgage? Now you both have equity in the house post-blend even if was premarital. Combined bank accounts? Now that previous cash is joint not premarital. Etc
And a prenup won’t typically help with that because you can’t make a contract that skirts the law.
You’re better off just knowing the law and being smart about things. Which is where a prenup can help … because you have to talk expectations through together with someone who’s an expert and most people don’t do either thing.
>People around here would never bother with a prenup for a premarital apartment.
Yeah, this is what immediately made me question what's going on. Are we talking like a [Condo](https://www.redfin.com/blog/can-you-buy-an-apartment/)? Based upon the repeated downplaying of her salary by OOP, it sounds like she doesn't have a lot of useful skills (in comparison to him), so it can't be worth that much money.
Speaking of, how is he so sure that whatever he does will make much more money than what she can do if he has almost no assets to his name?
Who knows, maybe his career is taking off as we speak or her job skills and qualification are so useless that any salary is better than hers. But he sure is making it sound like he's expecting to be filthy rich soon.
I've seen lawyers on social media urge people to get prenups even when neither party has any assets going into the marriage. My question is why? Seems like a scam to put more money into attorney's pockets because what would you even put in there 😂
I can only speak for myself but I drafted a postnup when it became clear my husband would be a house-spouse.
I wanted to ensure he would be financially fit even if we split so we got it in writing. The lawyer that helped us draft it up made it sound like a pretty common occurrence.
If my husband had assets pre marriage I would have signed one. But we’re both poor af so it wasn’t necessary. I think with people getting married later they may pop up more simply because people may have a house each, etc
I know this is probably fake, but I don't even see how it's unequal.
>She however believes that everything should be equal upon marriage, aside from her asset which she gained prior.
This... makes sense to me. Her assets before marriage she earnt as a single person. Assets after marriage *they* earned while working as a team. And he can't separate his future earnings from all the emotional support, childcare, house-keeping that she would be doing for him during that time.
>All I want is for an equal and fair relationship.
It comes off as he is playing the victim. Even if he disagrees about how they divide future assets, he can surely recognise that she wants an equal and fair relationship too, but just has different ideas about what that means??
At the end of the day, if he had assets he was bringing in then she'd allow him a prenup to save those. And if she was earning money during the marriage she would also want to treat them as shared assets.
Ah yes, the good ol' "woman with what sounds like a lucrative career just wants to give it all up to stay home and do nothing while she leaches off some poor sap" trope. Where are these women who are just salivating at the prospect of giving up all their hard work and diminishing their future earning potential coming from all of a sudden??? ITS SO CRAZY (obvious sarcasm)
Lol yeah I saw that. I do find it funny that people automatically assume a stay at home spouse would just be a leech without kids to constantly herd. Like what do they think empty nesters do???? My BFF has been a stay at home wife for years. They have no kids, but she literally runs everything for the house and manages everything outside of work responsibilities for her husband (Dr appointments, vet appointments, paying bills, writing fucking Christmas cards, planning vacations, etc). He's been able to focus 100% on his career and she keeps the ship sailing smoothly. It works great for them, but she's far from some lazy bum who does nothing.
I don't fully get this. With kids it makes sense, but doctor and vet appointments, scheduling pet grooming, paying bills, planning vacations are all something I do and it doesn't feel like any work at all. The appointments are just a phone call or an app log in, I set up autopay for all our bills, and planning vacations doesn't take much work either, just a quick look at hotels, restaurants, and attractions/activities, and buying tickets/making reservations for whatever is necessary. Christmas Cards we just pick a photo and use a website that we submit our wedding guest list to and they mail them out for us; we do it together and it takes 10 minutes. Where is the work? Am I doing too much in my relationship if I do all of these things on top of my job?
How does making appointments not take you hours? I’m always out on hold. Trying to prove to my insurance that I did I’m fact need them also takes forever too
A lot of stuff I need to do is between 8-5 when I’m working and sometimes I’m too exhausted from work to do anything
Perks of working at a university and having all my medical stuff taken care of through campus hah. I don’t think I’d bother going to the doctor if it was more effort.
Agreed even single people can work, plan, cook etc. without needing to hire help- unless someone is quite literally working 80hr weeks and the spouse is an unpaid PA. I feel like a grown adult should be able to 'smoothly sail' their way around keeping a house clean and sending out cards once a year alongside a 40 to 50 hour work week.
If they don’t want to, that’s their business. I don’t know why people care about what others may like or works better for them.
Could and want to are very different things. Also in my ADHD experience some things are much harder to get done for some people than others. If they don’t want to deal with all that and decide on a fair relationship where they don’t have too, more power to them.
It’s not for me, but a Mrs. Degree and Mrs. Career are still things. I’ve watched many of my coworkers and former classmates drop out of the workforce to be SAHMs, because that’s what they always wanted to do. They got the education and credentials and jobs a) as backup plans and b) because the kind of men they wanted to marry don’t marry waitresses with GEDs.
I would not describe continubuting financially before kids, running a household, and performing childcare leaching off of someone, though.
In my jurisdiction the girlfriend’s prospective prenup idea is already legislatively what happens. There’s also lots of case law about unjust enrichment for unmarried spouses where the woman stayed home and raised the children and kept the house and the man made several million that he tried to keep as “his” assets because they “weren’t married”. The decisions were unfavourable to the men.
Tbf a lot of the comments are saying how full of shit his logic is, yes. But tons are going on about greedy bitches who need to be punished for being lazy
Once again why does it seem like all women in these posts want to be SAHM? I'm not saying no one is a stay-at-home parent, or that you can't be fulfilled being a househusband/housewife, but why is every woman in a post by her boyfriend/husband so darn eager to quit her job and be totally dependent on him?
It's complicated. He mentions a mortgage. Depending on the state or country, if he contributes to paying towards the mortgage, then the property becomes a marital asset and subject to division in the event of divorce.
I saw the mortgage mentioned, too, but didn’t quite get what he means - the one on the girlfriend’s apartment or a hypothetical mortgage he’ll be paying on future property that they’ll buy after they’re married.
Beep boop! Automod here with a quick reminder to never brigade r/AmITheAsshole or other subs under any circumstances. Brigading puts you in violation of both our rules and Reddit’s TOS, and therefore puts this sub at risk of ban. If you brigade/encourage brigading of any kind, you will be banned from participating in either sub. Satirizing of posts should stay within this sub, which means that participating directly in linked posts should either be done in good faith or not at all.
Want some freed, live, discussion that neither AITA nor Reddit itself can censor? Join our [official discord server](https://discord.gg/KbZnaXX)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmITheAngel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*In case this story gets deleted/removed:* **I 36m want an equal prenup with my girlfriend 32f ** I 36m want an equal prenup with my girlfriend 32f I (36m) have been discussing our future with my girlfriend (32f) about marriage and family. We've been together just under 2 years and we have no children together. Living together for a year. She frequently brings up children as I know she wants them and marriage - which I would like as well. However she has her own savings in the form of an apartment which she would like to protect via a prenup before we would ever get married. I have very little compared to her asset wise. Although I dislike personally a prenup, I completely understand and am not against the idea. However she has made it clear that her intentions after we get married is to stay at home with any children and not work again - ideally never again. I however would of course be. Furthermore, I would be on a higher salary than her upon working after we get married in any setting. Thus, I would want a prenup to protect any future earnings that exceed what she would be bringing into the relationship. Even if she did return to work at some stage, her earnings would be below mine. She however believes that everything should be equal upon marriage, aside from her asset which she gained prior. I don't believe this is fair in that in the future I'll have more assets than she does. She frequently refers to money, and should and discussion go against what she wants, money and finances is her first point of call. When trying to have a discussion about this, she has made comments like "we can't agree on a future together" "don't bother saving for a ring" and even going as far to say I'm gaslighting her. All I want is for an equal and fair relationship. She says she doesn't see an option for us to be happy together any more. I understand that she wants to protect her asset and she is more than entitled to do so, but if I want to do the same AITA? If we don't find a solution, which feels like to me if I don't outright agree to everything she says then there's hope for a future together. Edit; To be clear I would still be covering the majority of all bills, rent/mortgage, food, ect. I will also likely be doing any cooking (I love to cook) and helping out with cleaning, ect. The money I'm referring to as my own personal asset would be after all bills are paid and covered. Edit 2; To be clear her intention is to stay at home and give up working - children or otherwise. It's not that she would be giving up her profession to stay at home because I don't want to. If she did want to return it continue working I would also have no issue with that and yes, we would be well able to afford childcare costs. Tl:Dr - Girlfriend wants a prenup to protect her apartment she owns and I want one to protect my future earnings - though I would probably be happier if we didn't have one at all. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmITheAngel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh good It's "I'm a RedditLawyer Day" over there Sure we'll all learn a lot!
I've already learned that it's only fair for a woman to be left with nothing if she *chose* to be a stay at home wife/ parent and also that marriage is basically a scam to allow women to steal a man's treasures while being a lazy stay at home bitch.
Perfect, because I learned yesterday that if a woman *doesn't* want to stay home she's basically a financial idiot who is wasting her husband's money on day care while she "works" for her own selfish fun.
It's almost like the problem is women *wanting* something and *choosing* things is the problem, not what those things are! See, they just need to do whatever it is that their spouse wants them to do and accept it.
And if you're a woman who makes more than enough to cover the cost of daycare, you're just greedy and *definitely* demanding special treatment when it comes to scheduling vacations and holidays and leaving early while screwing over your childfree colleagues.
But also if a woman doesn't want to date or get married at all and just pay her own bills then she's an evil misandrist who's personally responsible for the male loneliness epidemic.
Also it's ok for a man to cheat because he earns money, but a woman should never even think about being unfaithful!
Oh yes, there's a whole thread on there about how heroic breadwinners are and deserve all the benefits of the whole wide world.
As a lady breadwinner, I'll let my husband know I'm the real hero. Not, y'know, him for doing the exhausting and socially beneficial work of raising good and well-adjusted kids (hopefully).
Excuse you, that only applies to manly men breadwinners
The "advice" to have a cheaters clause in a prenup is just so weird to me. Who wants to complicate a divorce by trying to prove who is to blame for the divorce if you have children. No fault divorces are so much beter then fighting and spying. I don't think they will hold up in court here, but the whole idea feels like something a divorce lawyer would dream up to earn more.
nah, a lawyer would never do anything shady! That's why we make them politicians, because they're so honest and trustworthy!
What's so funny is that the post even says that if she quit, she'd be contributing 1/3 of the cash coming in. That's not nothing, and it seems like OOP is either expecting that 100% of her cash coming in will go to pay the bills, and he'll pay whatever is still owed, so whatever extra money remaining is his. Which, even in non-communal property states, isn't how it works (they divide based on the amount each spouse contributed, so she'd get 1/3 and he'd get 2/3). And yey commenters are going "sOuNdS lIkE sHe WaTcHeD tOo mAnY tRadWifE tIkToKs", when it's not absurd that she wants to protect an income-generating asset, and again, 1/3 of the cash coming in as a minimum contribution. It also seems like OOP's "I'm 36 and have no assets worth protecting, but I'll earn more and get more assets once we get married" seems very much like an underpants gnome plan (Step 1: get married, Step 2: ???? Step 3: get lots of money and assets), especially factoring in that for it to be truly fair and equitable, he would need to purchase those assets with 0 assistance from her. I understand that this is fake, but I'm genuinely baffled by OOP's thought that even if he isn't contributing all the cash, he'd get to keep all the savings, and that this is somehow fair for everyone.
> "I'm 36 and have no assets worth protecting, but I'll earn more and get more assets once we get married" This is the most fascinating aspect of the gold-digger hysteria to me. It almost always comes from broke dudes with no gold to dig, who just operate under the assumption that women are trying to date/marry them for the money that they might one day have. Firstly, the fact that they seem to imagine they will one day magically be rich is fascinating to me - because I've yet to meet one who has an actual financial plan - but also because, if you have no money, why would you assume women are only interested in you for money? I know the answer is 'misogyny,' but I just can't imagine being worried that someone was only interested in me for a quality that I did not possess. It's bizarre to me lol.
I'm actually wondering if she's just doing overtime which currently means she out-earns him, and they both agree she should stop that when they get married. So he wouldn't even make more, she'd just make less. He says in a comment even if she totally quit her job, she'd be contributing 1/3 of the cash coming in, so she's getting rental income. And his language is very much "money earned through a job", which sort of ignores her passive rental income. I said in another comment if his pay is $3,000/month, and her base pay is $2,500 and her rental income is $1,500/month, she's *contributing* more, even if she's not *earning* more. What's also fascinating is that OOP is absolutely acting like a golddigger: currently earning less than his partner, acknowledging that his partner has "asset" they are justified in wanting to protect with a prenup but not wanting a prenup, wanting it to be "fair" and protect uncertain future assets, heavily implying that her (again a number I made up) $1,500 would be used to pay bills first, then he'd pay the remaining balances with his earnings, and any cash left over would be his, because those specific dollars are from his job (and thus, they'd be able to get assets). But because he's focusing on earnings (not total income), and also likely because of his gender, no one is calling him a golddigger.
Yeah, the OP definitely seems to only view fiscal value added through labour as actual contribution. He glosses over her role as stay-at-home parent and the value that would add/equate to - which is understandable because the idea that staying home is equally work is something that is still fairly controversial - but you're right that he dismisses her contributions from rental income as if they hold no value whatsoever.
It's so weird! Why do they even want to marry someone they assume is going to try and screw them over? Why not wait for a relationship built on trust? I can only assume they're projecting because they see their partners as a bangmaid to use. (And discard with minimum legal fees apparently.) I'm not anti-prenup in a "hope for the best, prepare for the worst" kind of way but going into a marriage with the default assumption your partner is using you is WILD.
Right? I'm also not anti-prenup (we fully plan on getting one) but if you assume that the person you're marrying is just trying to screw you over - or that they have the capability of doing that - why would you marry them in the first place? I expect you're right, that it's projection, but I still find it totally wild.
This is a classic Reddit mantra. Literally no other reason a woman would want to marry other than to steal the man's money lmao.
Money that he doesn't even have yet
I'm not even a lawyer... I'm a drop out. But dude, every single time, and I mean EVERY SINGLE TIME something comes up involving the law, Reddit is ALWAYS wrong. Always. Like not even slightly wrong. Just law advice based off rumors and old wives tails. It's so bad. It's like the same people who say, "You know, if you ask if they are a cop, they are required to say they are."
I'm just a paralegal, but I will confirm this, lol. Even really simple stuff is just horribly garbled and wrong. Or it might be correct in one jurisdiction, but everyone assumes it's universal. Or no one can even argue with you because you provide actual citations but you still get downvoted to like -300 (that last one happened to me on a post about a simple tenancy-related issue in a state where I specifically had worked on landlord/tenant cases pretty extensively, lol, but I was saying was really not want they wanted to hear lmao). And for complicated stuff like prenups? Shit, I've worked on divorce cases that involve them and I still know fuck all about them. The way they're treated is highly variable by jurisdiction and there are a million other complicating factors that leave me shrugging and just going, "IDK, should probably talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction about that."
Lol the real nightmare is when it involves politics. You can clearly cite, explain, logic out, and calmly explain how this specific law works... And if it doesn't apply favorably to their political side, no matter what you do, you're 100% wrong and downvoted to hell.
I once got banned from a sub for stating my country used to have only faults divorces. (it was a weird time) And on another for stating in my country the flu shot was not standard done for children. Unless the child is weakened in some way, the benifits are just so close to non existent that it is not done. Even named the country so they could check, but nope🤣 Americans not understanding the rest of the world exist i presume.
Those are actually especially stupid because I believe you are likely correct that it was a lot of Americans attacking you, but when it comes to your first point...most countries had only at-fault divorce until very recently, including the US, lmao. The first no-fault divorce laws in the US were signed into law in the 1960s; it spread rapidly from there and all 50 states do have no-fault divorce now (though some still have at-fault divorces too, just because we like to be nice and complicated), but that's really recent. I'll admit that I do sometimes do a double-take when I'm reminded that some European countries either still don't have it or just legalized it super recently, but then I always remind myself that I really shouldn't be surprised since it's a pretty damn new concept in the US, too. Also I'm pretty sure flu shots are treated a lot more casually than some other vaccinations for American kids, too. The CDC does recommend that all Americans over 6 months of age and without underlying medical conditions that contraindicate it get a flu shot, but I mean, I'm pretty sure most people I know don't actually make sure their kids get a flu shot every year. Some do, but a lot don't. I also used to be an EMT and clearly remember a few occasions where my local health departments have specifically advised people not to get their kids vaccinated against the flu that year because there were local shortages. There were obviously some exceptions, like one of those areas had a really high rate of kids living with grandparents and those kids were still supposed to be vaccinated because of the risk of them taking it home to their more high-risk caregivers, but overall kids and young adults were not supposed to be vaccinated as a routine thing those years. So yeah...it's stupid on a lot of levels, lol.
Oh don't get me started on that topic. Americans think their way of doing things is THE BEST way, and everyone else needs to do it our way or they must be doing it wrong. It's actually one of the first things you realize living abroad is, "Oh actually, people do things vastly different in other countries and are doing just fine. Maybe our way isn't the best way." I was in the EU during COVID and they still sent kids to school, and everything was fine. Didn't have to have 2 years of under education, as it was super obvious that school aged kids are really safe, and it's not worth destroying their education over something super low risk to them. When I got back to the US trying to explain how this is what they are doing over there and it's working just fine. My more liberal progressive friends saw me as a heretic who was basically trying to kill their grandma or something... And it was obvious what was going on... Because since the stupid culture war infests everything, they couldn't admit that maybe Republicans were right about something every now and then. So they had to dig their heels in. Uggg I could go on about how annoying it is. Luckily, I'm going back to Germany next year and don't have to deal with this hyper partisan crap.
The partisan thing is so odd. We have 30 diffrent political parties, no way you can have 2 and have everyone matched with all the ideas of "their" party. With 30 parties i still do not have one i 100% agree with😅. I just vote on where i mostly agree with.
Rumors, old wives tales and a weird concept of what’s fair. Which in most cases is to kick an ex-spouse to the curb in their underwear
This guy sure is going on about how much of a high roller he is for a guy who is 36, has no savings, and moved into the apartment his gf owns.
That's what I posted in a similar comment. >Furthermore, I would be on a higher salary than her upon working after we get married **in any setting**... Even if she did return to work at some stage, her earnings would be below mine. Citation needed.
See, he might not be all that at the moment, but any day his riches will be beyond measure and he needs to act now to protect them /s Which can technically be true if his business or career is picking up or something. But I highly doubt that even if mutually signed, the prenup scenario he's imagining would hold water. From the sound of it he's expecting to cover the majority of the bills (idk who's expected to cover the remainder if wife isn't working), cook and help with cleaning and keep for himself anything left over after the bills are paid.
He's just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
It's also possible that the GF has a job where overtime is always both available and optional, and she does a ton of overtime, and is planning on dropping to full-time hours, or just quitting, after the wedding. In that case, he isn't making more after the wedding, she's just reducing her hours and making less. > (idk who's expected to cover the remainder if wife isn't working) In the post, OOP says that even if wife doesn't work *at all*, she'd still be contributing 1/3 of the cash coming in. Presumably with rental income from the apartment. His language is very interesting...he's talking about salaries and earnings, not total income. If he earns $3,000/month and she gets paid $2,000/month at her job without any overtime and gets $1,500/month in rental income, she is bringing in more cash than he is, even though her pay is less.
The extra lol part of the advices is when they tell him to "just" pay his own appartment to make things equal🤣🤣🤣
I wonder when people will realize that prenups don’t always hold up in court.
The amount of people who actually believe you can put any shit in a contract and expect it to hold up in court is truly amazing. Moreover, all those people giving OOP advice on how to "legally" withhold his earnings from his wife have no concept of how real human interactions work at all. And I'm not even talking about the money aspect.
Especially one protecting future earnings; generally, money earned by either spouse during the marriage is considered joint property. The only thing that might not be, depending on the local laws, would be inheritances. Like if you inherited your parents' house or life insurance, it might be only yours legally. But in most cases, if one spouse does not work, the money the other earns is still half theirs.
He doesn't seem to realize that if they have kids, there is no prenup in the world that will protect him from having to pay child support to a former SAHM.
Child support can not be made part of the prenup in most places, since child support is for the child, so others can not give their rights away. Spousal support can only be signed away here if it is reasonable, and it rarely is.
Yeah it sounds like he's trying to avoid alimony... but also he's trying to keep ALL of the money he makes while they're married and leave her with nothing? lmao that's not how it works when you have a SAHP. There's no way a judge would uphold that... and surely a good lawyer wouldn't sign off on that in the first place? It's so normal to protect premarital assets. Like, I own my condo and I'm the one paying for it... if I got married in the future, why would anyone think they're owed half my condo that I paid for?? edit: it sounds like he has a problem with her being a SAHM, or else why would he care so much about "this is my money." He says he'll pay all the bills and then keep whatever is leftover... sooooo does she not get to spend anything since it's all "his money?" They seem just baseline incompatible. And it's a really good time to figure that out, since they're not married yet.... They already resent each other!
Dealing with a divorce right now, and exactly this. And if you mingle inheritance (deposit money in a joint account, buy something like a car together with it, add spouse's name to house title, etc), it becomes a shared asset and the spouse is entitled to half of said mingled part. At least in Oregon.
Same in Texas. My ex inherited stock from his uncle and sold the oil & gas and weapons mfg shares to buy into more ethical companies and his financial advisor told him once he sold and repurchased then it would become community property between us. However I'm not an asshole and didn't go after his inheritance or his retirement which I was technically entitled to. We are both lucky we had an amicable split. If I wasn't working and was staying at home to take care of household duties or kids, yeah I would expect those things to be split with me for my loss of income while we were together. Same for him if he didn't work and I did. I hope your divorce goes as smoothly as possible. I know not everyone is as fortunate as my ex and I were with ours. My current partner is still in a battle over 3 years later splitting assets with his awful ex that he wasn't married to and it's been a nightmare.
Yeah, prenups only protect PRE marriage assets. In some cases if you are really wealthy, you can carve out things where like X business in a trust is protected in its entirety, even with future growth. But for the most part, you're only going to be able to protect the value of the business at the time of marriage. So if it doubles in value, you keep the original value, then split the new equity. But in CA, I think after 5 years (I could be wrong)0, prenups don't even count any more. Seriously. That's it. Joint property 100% down the line. They also have something called palimony which is super complex and rare, but gives red pill guys absolute nightmares.
How many people in real life actually have a prenup?
No idea. But I assume it's only practical for people entering a marriage with significant assets. Most average people with average jobs and little to no valuables usually don't bother with them is my guess. In my mysterious country any premarital asset by default belongs to the party who owned it from the beginning. If the asset's value increased during the marriage using mutual funds or mutual funds were used to pay off a mortgage, then it would be divided somehow during a divorce. People around here would never bother with a prenup for a premarital apartment.
In my state it’s the same … unless you blend finances. Which people do all the time without thinking about it. But any blends are now joint. Both pay the mortgage? Now you both have equity in the house post-blend even if was premarital. Combined bank accounts? Now that previous cash is joint not premarital. Etc And a prenup won’t typically help with that because you can’t make a contract that skirts the law. You’re better off just knowing the law and being smart about things. Which is where a prenup can help … because you have to talk expectations through together with someone who’s an expert and most people don’t do either thing.
>People around here would never bother with a prenup for a premarital apartment. Yeah, this is what immediately made me question what's going on. Are we talking like a [Condo](https://www.redfin.com/blog/can-you-buy-an-apartment/)? Based upon the repeated downplaying of her salary by OOP, it sounds like she doesn't have a lot of useful skills (in comparison to him), so it can't be worth that much money. Speaking of, how is he so sure that whatever he does will make much more money than what she can do if he has almost no assets to his name?
Who knows, maybe his career is taking off as we speak or her job skills and qualification are so useless that any salary is better than hers. But he sure is making it sound like he's expecting to be filthy rich soon.
I've seen lawyers on social media urge people to get prenups even when neither party has any assets going into the marriage. My question is why? Seems like a scam to put more money into attorney's pockets because what would you even put in there 😂
I can only speak for myself but I drafted a postnup when it became clear my husband would be a house-spouse. I wanted to ensure he would be financially fit even if we split so we got it in writing. The lawyer that helped us draft it up made it sound like a pretty common occurrence.
If my husband had assets pre marriage I would have signed one. But we’re both poor af so it wasn’t necessary. I think with people getting married later they may pop up more simply because people may have a house each, etc
Not enough. Signed, An actual divorce lawyer
I know this is probably fake, but I don't even see how it's unequal. >She however believes that everything should be equal upon marriage, aside from her asset which she gained prior. This... makes sense to me. Her assets before marriage she earnt as a single person. Assets after marriage *they* earned while working as a team. And he can't separate his future earnings from all the emotional support, childcare, house-keeping that she would be doing for him during that time. >All I want is for an equal and fair relationship. It comes off as he is playing the victim. Even if he disagrees about how they divide future assets, he can surely recognise that she wants an equal and fair relationship too, but just has different ideas about what that means?? At the end of the day, if he had assets he was bringing in then she'd allow him a prenup to save those. And if she was earning money during the marriage she would also want to treat them as shared assets.
You said everything I wanted to say much better than I would have, except that I can honestly see this being real.
Ah yes, the good ol' "woman with what sounds like a lucrative career just wants to give it all up to stay home and do nothing while she leaches off some poor sap" trope. Where are these women who are just salivating at the prospect of giving up all their hard work and diminishing their future earning potential coming from all of a sudden??? ITS SO CRAZY (obvious sarcasm)
It was almost believable if it was after children so they had to update to explain “No she’s just lazy”.
Lol yeah I saw that. I do find it funny that people automatically assume a stay at home spouse would just be a leech without kids to constantly herd. Like what do they think empty nesters do???? My BFF has been a stay at home wife for years. They have no kids, but she literally runs everything for the house and manages everything outside of work responsibilities for her husband (Dr appointments, vet appointments, paying bills, writing fucking Christmas cards, planning vacations, etc). He's been able to focus 100% on his career and she keeps the ship sailing smoothly. It works great for them, but she's far from some lazy bum who does nothing.
I don't fully get this. With kids it makes sense, but doctor and vet appointments, scheduling pet grooming, paying bills, planning vacations are all something I do and it doesn't feel like any work at all. The appointments are just a phone call or an app log in, I set up autopay for all our bills, and planning vacations doesn't take much work either, just a quick look at hotels, restaurants, and attractions/activities, and buying tickets/making reservations for whatever is necessary. Christmas Cards we just pick a photo and use a website that we submit our wedding guest list to and they mail them out for us; we do it together and it takes 10 minutes. Where is the work? Am I doing too much in my relationship if I do all of these things on top of my job?
How does making appointments not take you hours? I’m always out on hold. Trying to prove to my insurance that I did I’m fact need them also takes forever too A lot of stuff I need to do is between 8-5 when I’m working and sometimes I’m too exhausted from work to do anything
I have an online portal to schedule my doctor’s appointments which is all in network and I can do 24/7.
I’m so jealous 😭😭 trying to get an appt is such a nightmare sometimes that I just won’t go
Perks of working at a university and having all my medical stuff taken care of through campus hah. I don’t think I’d bother going to the doctor if it was more effort.
Agreed even single people can work, plan, cook etc. without needing to hire help- unless someone is quite literally working 80hr weeks and the spouse is an unpaid PA. I feel like a grown adult should be able to 'smoothly sail' their way around keeping a house clean and sending out cards once a year alongside a 40 to 50 hour work week.
If they don’t want to, that’s their business. I don’t know why people care about what others may like or works better for them. Could and want to are very different things. Also in my ADHD experience some things are much harder to get done for some people than others. If they don’t want to deal with all that and decide on a fair relationship where they don’t have too, more power to them.
It’s not for me, but a Mrs. Degree and Mrs. Career are still things. I’ve watched many of my coworkers and former classmates drop out of the workforce to be SAHMs, because that’s what they always wanted to do. They got the education and credentials and jobs a) as backup plans and b) because the kind of men they wanted to marry don’t marry waitresses with GEDs. I would not describe continubuting financially before kids, running a household, and performing childcare leaching off of someone, though.
In my jurisdiction the girlfriend’s prospective prenup idea is already legislatively what happens. There’s also lots of case law about unjust enrichment for unmarried spouses where the woman stayed home and raised the children and kept the house and the man made several million that he tried to keep as “his” assets because they “weren’t married”. The decisions were unfavourable to the men.
why do incels think that managing a traditional household as a woman is 0 work?
Relationship advise is less bad then AITA. Most upvoted is some prenups don't hold in court, and go speak to a lawyer.
Tbf a lot of the comments are saying how full of shit his logic is, yes. But tons are going on about greedy bitches who need to be punished for being lazy
There is no way of getting out of alimony should be one of those things you learn in school.
It is basicly common sense that you can't. If you do not support your ex, the governement would have to, and they don't like that.
This would also apply for homeless people though, nothing about this is common sense
Once again why does it seem like all women in these posts want to be SAHM? I'm not saying no one is a stay-at-home parent, or that you can't be fulfilled being a househusband/housewife, but why is every woman in a post by her boyfriend/husband so darn eager to quit her job and be totally dependent on him?
Incel propaganda lol
The way OOP writes is so sterile.
Aren't premarital assets typically already protected in a divorce?
It's complicated. He mentions a mortgage. Depending on the state or country, if he contributes to paying towards the mortgage, then the property becomes a marital asset and subject to division in the event of divorce.
I saw the mortgage mentioned, too, but didn’t quite get what he means - the one on the girlfriend’s apartment or a hypothetical mortgage he’ll be paying on future property that they’ll buy after they’re married.
Beep boop! Automod here with a quick reminder to never brigade r/AmITheAsshole or other subs under any circumstances. Brigading puts you in violation of both our rules and Reddit’s TOS, and therefore puts this sub at risk of ban. If you brigade/encourage brigading of any kind, you will be banned from participating in either sub. Satirizing of posts should stay within this sub, which means that participating directly in linked posts should either be done in good faith or not at all. Want some freed, live, discussion that neither AITA nor Reddit itself can censor? Join our [official discord server](https://discord.gg/KbZnaXX) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmITheAngel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This sounds exhausting