TV01:

Marriage as a proposition has changed significantly in recent times. One of the downsides for the “wealthier party” – typically men – can be serious financial loss, possibly leading to severe hardship for all but the quite well off.

With the introduction of “no-fault” divorce and laws designed to “ensure the best interest of any children” – which invariably benefits the “primary carer”, a role for the most part presumptuously awarded to the mother – men are also in danger of losing out on a significant role in raising their children.

Many on this thread are looking at “Nups” as the solution, be that pre or post. And doubtless, with  a little creativity, I’m sure we could well see nups evolve into a fully-fledged (and tradable?) financial instrument. The primary driver behind this approach being to limit the financial downside of divorce.

I beg to differ. And for a whole host of reasons;

1. Even if nups were perfectly legal and enforceable, they’d still have to be agreed by the parties. What woman in this day and age would not insist on minimum and potentially scaled (if Daddy hits pay dirt at any point) financial payments for “her kids”. Is anyone left in doubt as to the position the “law” will take on this?
2. It doesn’t speak to a potentially more costly issue – emotionally and financially – of access to the children
3. It doesn’t address or challenge the true motivation behind some of the weird political and legal maneuvering. In fact, it plays right into it’s hands per 1. above
4. An even greater reason – and without touching on 4. above - it doesn’t address root issues, such as the nature, benefits and understanding of marriage. Rebalancing and reclaiming it for the key, most basic and ultimately most important societal building block it is. The family.
5.  Marriage is not a business transaction

Let me start form point 5. First. Many of the discussions here typically focus on rich (celeb) type situations, which to be honest are far from the typical “garden variety” divorce.

As has been rightly pointed out, how many – if any – of the discussants here are any better than comfortably well off? And even if you are, a messy and acrimonious divorce can make road-kill of even the most comfortable lifestyle. Not to mention the physical and emotional costs. Anyone reading will have heard of the “broken men” and the “estranged and wayward children”. Very  real possibilities for your ordinary Joe in the event of divorce.

To treat marriage or any part of it “transactionally” is to divorce - excuse the pun - it from its true worth and meaning and strip it of much of it’s value.

In fact, it would be more honest to treat it as a “transaction” end-to-end, which to be honest is what a lot of people do anyway. Merely adding some spiritual and social content at the front-end, then using the courts to reap the profit at close.

Honest end-game here would be a situation (and if I recall there has been one, involving a rich celeb no less) where having kids and providing for their upkeep were based on a pre-agreed legal contract. Is that really what we want?


More later if time permits, but I welcome comment on the little I’ve posted.

Best
TV

TV01:

I beg to differ. And for a whole host of reasons;

1. Even if nups were perfectly legal and enforceable, they’d still have to be agreed by the parties. What woman in this day and age would not insist on minimum and potentially scaled (if Daddy hits pay dirt at any point) financial payments for “her kids”. Is anyone left in doubt as to the position the “law” will take on this?
2. It doesn’t speak to a potentially more costly issue – emotionally and financially – of access to the children
3. It doesn’t address or challenge the true motivation behind some of the weird political and legal maneuvering. In fact, it plays right into it’s hands per 1. above
4. An even greater reason – and without touching on 4. above - it doesn’t address root issues, such as the nature, benefits and understanding of marriage. Rebalancing and reclaiming it for the key, most basic and ultimately most important societal building block it is. The family.
5.  Marriage is not a business transaction

TV01:

Let me start form point 5. First. Many of the discussions here typically focus on rich (celeb) type situations, which to be honest are far from the typical “garden variety” divorce.

As has been rightly pointed out, how many – if any – of the discussants here are any better than comfortably well off? And even if you are, a messy and acrimonious divorce can make road-kill of even the most comfortable lifestyle. Not to mention the physical and emotional costs. Anyone reading will have heard of the “broken men” and the “estranged and wayward children”. Very  real possibilities for your ordinary Joe in the event of divorce.

To treat marriage or any part of it “transactionally” is to divorce - excuse the pun - it from its true worth and meaning and strip it of much of it’s value.

In fact, it would be more honest to treat it as a “transaction” end-to-end, which to be honest is what a lot of people do anyway. Merely adding some spiritual and social content at the front-end, then using the courts to reap the profit at close.

Honest end-game here would be a situation (and if I recall there has been one, involving a rich celeb no less) where having kids and providing for their upkeep were based on a pre-agreed legal contract. Is that really what we want?


More later if time permits, but I welcome comment on the little I’ve posted.

Best
TV

Kutey:

Sagamite shut the f*uck up

"Always have it on your mind which sex is more into marriage. Which sex needs marriage more. Which sex will struggle to get marriage when they need it.

If you want it, it is on my fcking terms." Total misogynist.

This comment alone shows what a m0ron you are. You are one of those people that will get married  to a girl playing nicey nicey and then show you true colors after. You think a woman needs you and you are doing her a favor so you will marry for all the wrong reasons. Your own fcking terms? Why don't you take a pole and stick it up your ar5e.

Here in the UK in a CIVILIZED country things don't work that way. You can't throw a woman out on the streets with kids with nothing or little. I hope she gets him for all he worth and more. Married with 4 kids  If he thinks he can get away with village Naija mentality like you have displayed here stayed tuned to the story. As5h0le.

And the fact that you shout louder and try to prove your point more forcefully doesn't make you right so take a chill pill.

Kutey:

ahahah aha ah ah you are actually hilarious I beg, don't go and get hypertension cause of me.

You obviously have issues and need to speak to someone and get the help required

Kutey:

Which one of your idiotic statements do you want explained d1ckhead

The one where you say you will happily abandon your child till 18, then what? lavish them with money and that will make it all ok. Do you think stuff before you type?

Or where your fellow monkeys joined you in quoting jigga (ignorant idiots use rappers as references) rather than people that actually have successful relationships and families. Thats why the babymamas continue to breed things that are more close to animals than humans prone to violence because they have no fathers or good examples in their life.

Are you saying she and her/his children should have left the house for him? I'm pretty sure he can afford another one and since she has sacrificed years looking after the kids surely she should continue to do so. Let the courts decide. If he didn't like the way things work in the UK he should never have come in the first place.

Kutey:

For every cretin you call me you are three times an imbec1le, personal insults don't bother me the least cause you don't know me.

"so tell me how it is civilized to throw a man out of his own house and tell him to pay for it."

Its not HIS house, its the family house so the bulk of the family stays there and he should pay because he was the main/sole breadwinner prior to the breakdown of the relationship while she was the main home carer capisc?

Sagamite:

If you want to overcome all these challenges, come and meet me. I would develop a prenup contract that would beat them piece-easy and will be arguable in any court. It really is not rocket science.

Sagamite:

What you want is completely irrelevant in the West. Marriage IS a transactional engagement. They have made it that way and you will have to be intellectually blind not to see it. They have destroyed marriage. IT IS BUSINESS and one should treat it like serious business. Don't live in Lululand. As I have said repeatedly: Fck her concept of romance.

Kutey:

You are a d1ckhead. You can go fu<k yourself.

He married her and had a family. He paid for the house, she enabled him to have a family. End of story.

21 mill seems absolutely reasonable to me and i'm sure the courts will agree. It genuinely reflects time spent together and offspring. She might have given up career and who knows what to have 4 pregnancies and take care of the children. I would probably have gone for a higher figure especially if he is worth what they are quoting.

Anyway actually got stuff to do, so keep your foolish arguments coming. I will reply as soon as I can. Arrow

Kutey:

You are a d1ckhead. You can go fu<k yourself.

He married her and had a family. He paid for the house, she enabled him to have a family. End of story.

21 mill seems absolutely reasonable to me and i'm sure the courts will agree. It genuinely reflects time spent together and offspring. She might have given up career and who knows what to have 4 pregnancies and take care of the children. I would probably have gone for a higher figure especially if he is worth what they are quoting.

Anyway actually got stuff to do, so keep your foolish arguments coming. I will reply as soon as I can. Arrow

TV01:

Anything you can dream up can be overuled by the courts and somethings simply cannot be legislated for or resolved via legal means. This approach will simply exacerbate the gender conflict - already so apparent here - and cannot be the best environment to raise children. Society will suffer.

TV01:

Plus making marriage a legal contract means it is no longer marriage, but a transaction. It does not and cannot restore the true essence of marriage. Can one even begin to enumerate the potential problems and sorry mess this will result in.

- What's to stop a seperate contract to have kids with other men?
- What if she can't deliver on the required number of children
- Presumably if she's not a wife in the traditional sense, she can be with whomsoever she chooses? Children potentially exposed to "all sorts"
- Did you know most child abuse typically occurs where one of the parents is not the birth parent?
- I could go on and on with the "what if?". And the answer isn't more legal clauses, it's a return to proper marriage

TV01:

What the individual or couple want in marriage is everything. If one cannot find someone who will commit to their "proper marriage" aspirations, don't marry. If they can and they both commit to it, the courts and legal rulings count for nothing. At this point - and who knows for sure how things will change? - the obtuse laws and destructive institutions around marriage only apply if you let them.

I'm not blind to it, merely refuse to buy into it.

I've already stated what I feel will be the problems with treating it as or replacing it with a transactional type arrangement. The true essence of marriage is still available if that's what we choose. I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "misogynist" comment, but the aggressive mindset it inculcates is clear and is not the basis for proper marriage.

My mantra continjues to be; get the right understanding, get the right person, then get married.

Best
TV

Sagamite:

Believe me, root the prenup on human rights and willingness to marry and she would be in a Nursing home before the courts can resolve it. You will take it as far as the human rights courts.

It is a transaction in the West. They have made it so legislatively.

Not protecting yourself by signing a prenup would not stop it from being a transaction. It would just mean you have put your life in the hands of another (from a sex known not to be logical) and leave yourself liable to be fcked up in the TRANSACTION!

And your potential problem list is frankly ridiculous.

What has prenup got to do with number of children had?

How does lack of prenup stop a child ending up with step-parents?

Don't say "if you can not find someone who would commit to a proper marriage". You will find.

But by now you should know most women themselves don't know what they will do tomorrow. They might tell you never but then ever do it. A wise friend once told me: Never believe what a woman says, believes what she does. I act more on body language and actions of a woman than her words. And don't call that misogynist. If you are observant enough you will see that is how women themselves deal with each other. They know!

You are going to marry some 25 year old and then think you know or she knows what she would do when she is 38 years old? Someone you dated for lets say 2 years.

Please, nigga. It seems you know nothing about women. You are a "real man". I am not.

My proper marriage aspiration is: she would marry me for me, we share when we are married and we stop sharing if it does not work out and live with what we contributed.

I am not marrying cretinous goats like Kutey who would say she is used to a lifestyle and I must fund it while her lazy arse contributes nothing.

dayokanu:

Didnt he enable her to have a family too? Was she not willing to have the children or did hse have them under durress?

She gave up a career? How much has her mates made in their career during the course of her marriage? surely not up to 10% of 21m

TV01:

Just a point. As much as we are discussing a point around the law being the problem and/or solutoin, you do realise that your arguement submits that women are the real - and irredeemable - problem here? In which case that kind of contradicts your "aspiration" in red. And with that attitude why bother? I certainly wouldn't advise it.

pro01:

You dey mind these greedy buffoons? They have all been making the same tired and senseless arguments and they are beginning to sound grating. Oh she gave up a career to have HIS children. Oh she invested effort in raising HIS children and 'taking care' of HIS home, and for these reasons she is perforce entitled to a sizable chunk of the man's wealth if she ever files for divorce! I really have to question the sincerity and sanity of any human being that agrees with such asinine arguments.

If bearing children is such an expensive proposition, how much do surrogate mothers get paid? If nurturing children is such an unspeakably difficult task, then nannies would be the highest earners. If 'taking care of the 'home' is an unbelievably demanding job, then housekeepers and maids would all be millionaires wouldn't they? If missing out on a 'great' career (assuming this was done against her wish) made her miss out on her own self-made wealth, then we have to ask: how many Ivy-League educated career women retire with savings/net-worths of uo to $21m? ? ? ?

Seeing how ridiculous these all sound, isn't it clear that these deceitful women are blinded by their greed? And we all know that there is nothing more dangerous than deceit fuelled by greed.

Again, I shamelessly insist that rappers make better role models in matters like this. It's certainly better to have a baby momma or two than stand the risk of losing even 20% of one's net worth to one ungrateful b*itch with a horrifyingly nauseating sense of entitlement.

Kutey:

You are still a dickhead and an as5hole but the statement:
"My proper marriage aspiration is: she would marry me for me, we share when we are married and we stop sharing if it does not work out and live with what we contributed." make me believe there is hope as i agree a 100%. She contributed and brought to life your children. If you don't like it move back to your village.

I have answered all your points but its probably not want you wanted to hear. Me no care.

"I am not marrying cretinous goats like Kutey who would say she is used to a lifestyle and I must fund it while her lazy arse contributes nothing."
Ehrm, I'm not going to boast but I am very hardworking and I earn way way more than is necessary to fund my lifestyle. I am very comfortable indeed  and the last thing I would want to be is a housewife (due respect to those who chose to)
By all means, when you have daughters have them live in fear that they have to take everything that her husband will throw at her including emotional and physical abuse, cheating, HIV, violence. Tell her even if she has children with him she will leave with nothing as she has no value and she is just there to breed his kids.
Some shocking stories on this forum (like my husband comes home and smashes my head everyday, I had 7 miscarriages because of his beatings and a constant blue eye. He has women sleeping in our bed and he has told me he hates me, should I stay with him? and invariably the response is "oh, please my dear pray and be nice to him while he breaks your teeth. Cook him his best meals everyday and submit to him. give him sex 3 times a day and speak to pastor. What God has put together no man shall put asunder."

As for that 1diot that has made rappers his role models and has bitches for babymamas may it be unto you as you have wished.

dayokanu:

So its better to ask women now

Do you really want to have children or you are having children to please me?

if you are having children because you want to, then you shouldnt expect any compensation for having what you wanted

But if you expect me to compensate you for having your children, I better find a surrogate while me and you live together in a childless relationship.

If a woman is still working , Does she still need to be compensated? if yes for what?

dayokanu:

So its better to ask women now

Do you really want to have children or you are having children to please me?

if you are having children because you want to, then you shouldnt expect any compensation for having what you wanted

But if you expect me to compensate you for having your children, I better find a surrogate while me and you live together in a childless relationship.

If a woman is still working , Does she still need to be compensated? if yes for what?

dayokanu:

So its better to ask women now

Do you really want to have children or you are having children to please me?

if you are having children because you want to, then you shouldnt expect any compensation for having what you wanted

But if you expect me to compensate you for having your children, I better find a surrogate while me and you live together in a childless relationship.

If a woman is still working , Does she still need to be compensated? if yes for what?

Sagamite:

Lets see how many women take that offer up.

Compensate you for doing what you want to do badly, you get a lot of joy from and keep the rewards. You must be having a laff.

Kutey:


Or where your fellow monkeys joined you in quoting jigga (ignorant idiots use rappers as references) rather than people that actually have successful relationships and families. Thats why the babymamas continue to breed things that are more close to animals than humans prone to violence because they have no fathers or good examples in their life.