How do I successfully prevent myself from losing everything Ive worked for.
Like say for instance I married a homeless woman. If we get a divorce, how do I not have to shell out everything Ive worked for.
Theres some circumstances but theres a girl I love and its about time I started thinking about a family. But she barely has anything and doesnt really make enough to support herself.
While this isnt a problem its just that the thought of losing the things Ive worked towards because a marriage went sours makes me not want to do it.
How do I protect myself against worst case scenarios?
>Like say for instance I married a homeless woman
>How do I successfully prevent myself from losing everything Ive worked for.
You don't have kids, you don't live with them(depending on the state) and you don't get married.
Prenups are thrown out by judges far more than half the time. Second off you're probably not going to succeed if you're the type of guy that needs to ask in the first place.
Some has to think about what happens when a marriage goes south. Do you make choices only based on whether or not everything goes right. Im not so childish as to assume that Im 100% guaranteed to have the perfect marriage.
A prenup is a practical arrangement. But even if you intend to get one, you shouldn't marry someone you wouldn't be comfortable marrying without one. You should get it anyway -again, practicality- but if you don't have that kind of absolute implicit trust, then you have no business getting married.
Not sûre why everyone is all the rage about prenups. It is very easy to crack a pre nup.. "I didn't receive legal advice".
Secondly, I'm Canada at least you keep everyone you had before the marriage. You only time you could ever argue if you know that in the short term you'd be inherritring thousands of dollars.
An even then... After living through a hellish divorce (6 yrs) I would never sign or suggest a pre nup. If my partner suggested one I'd move out the next day.
A marriage is a big commitment if you are having major doubts before you even get married, hold off the wedding..
>This is nonsense. Do you trust that no matter what happens you partner wouldnt get a divorce.
The only things that could drive her to do that are things that it is in my power to do, or not to do. And I will never do them. What reason, then, should I have to distrust?
This is the other half of being faithful. Loyalty is an important part of the question, but no less important is actually, you know, having faith in them.
>Some has to think about what happens when a marriage goes south.
As though this were a matter of random chance? It's not. Why treat it as if it were?
>Do you make choices only based on whether or not everything goes right.
No. I build a situation where the concept it it going wrong for long ebough and severely enough to make divorce seem like an attractive option no longer makes any sense.
Thisis not effortless. It takes active maintenance. That's work; on rare occasions, it even rises to the level of a chore. But you get out what you put in.
>Im not so childish as to assume that Im 100% guaranteed to have the perfect marriage.
Of course not. No marriage is perfect: the real question is how we deal with those imperfections.
It seems to me as though you want the benefits of marriage, without having to assume the so-called burden of trusting a woman. This is a sign that you are not ready.
>I dont know anything about history
>Why treat it as if it were?
Im not treating it as one. The fact that a prenup was built into it just shows that theres are things that people dont agree with about it and have no reason to accept.
>But you get out what you put in.
You seem to think that divorces never happen. Look up the divorce rate.
>without having to assume the so-called burden of trusting a woman
Again would you trust her with your life on the line. Its absurd to ignore what happens during a divorce.
What about the crude divorce rate? It's been hovering around 3.x% for most developed nations.
I fucking hate it when none of you cunts have taken a statistics course and do not understand what's being trotted around as the "50% divorce rate" is the marriage rate vs divorce rate - that is, for every two couples that get married, one couple gets divorced. In the overall scheme of things, THIS MEANS NOTHING, in the same way for every child that is born, 2 people reach retirement age.
>However, about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.
You probably dont even know what a confidence interval is.
>THIS MEANS NOTHING
It means that half of marriages in end divorce.
>the same way for every child that is born, 2 people reach retirement age.
This actually makes me want to insult your intellect
can wait to see your suicide thread OP after she takes all of your assets and being force to pay alimony. :^)
>How do I protect myself against worst case scenarios?
there is nothing you can do because she can cry in court and the judge will just rule out the prenup. also the lawyers will delay your divorce case on purpose to get as much money out of you as possible.
In my experience the best thing (depending on the laws of where you live) is to live toghether withought getting married, start a family, and wait 15 years of family life to get married. If you dont breakup by then you never will..
>Im not treating it as one. The fact that a prenup was built into it just shows that theres are things that people dont agree with about it and have no reason to accept.
Um, no, actually, it doesn't.
>>But you get out what you put in.
>You seem to think that divorces never happen. Look up the divorce rate.
Abuse of statistics. I reiterate that whether a given couple divorces is not a random process.
The ways that we think about love and marriage have changed a great deal over the years that the divorce rate has skyrocketed: in particular, the notion that true love is effortless, and conversely, that love which must be cultivated or maintained is inauthentic. I submit that these memes have affected the divorce rate far more than any changes in divorce law.
This is not to claim that current divorce law is perfect, or even good. It's based on ancient societal assumptions that no longer hold in modern society, and arguably never held to any degree that deserved enshrinement in law. They should, in fact, be fixed.
>Again would you trust her with your life on the line.
Of course I would. Why on Earth would I marry someone I didn't trust with my life on the line? But that is not what you asked before: you asked me to project myself into a misandrist dystopia that bears no resemblance to any form of reality.
>Its absurd to ignore what happens during a divorce.
Basing marriage decisions on divorce law is rank paranoia even at best. In some cases, as with the redpillers and MGTOWs, it's rooted in things far darker.
>Why on Earth would I marry someone I didn't trust with my life on the line?
So youd honestly marry someone if in the case of divorce you would be executed...
This just shows that theres no way we could see eye to eye. Thats ridiculous.
>Basing marriage decisions on divorce law is rank paranoia even at best
No it isnt. There are things I want toe accomplish and Im not going to let anything get in the way. If dying without marriage insures that then so be it.
>Abuse of statistics. I reiterate that whether a given couple divorces is not a random process.
>Im going to ignore how high the divorce rate is and never think about what happens to me in case of divorce.
There is nothing inconsistent in the statements you mentioned. I do not deny that divorce happens. What I deny is that it's a stochastic process, and, therefore, I deny that the statistics have any value in making individual marriage decisions.
>So youd honestly marry someone if in the case of divorce you would be executed...
This is an absurd situation that happens nowhere on Earth, never has, and never will. It should not be dignified with an answer; to even bring it up as though it could be real speaks ill of your mental health.
Despite this, sinve it is clear that you are going to keep badgering me about this, yes, I would trust her. Your scenario makes me uncomfortable on a visceral, pathetic level, and I had to do some soul-searching, I will admit. But I am faithful to my wife, not just in that I am loyal to her, but that I have faith in her. She deserves no less. Nor does any partner of yours, loath that you are to give it.
>This just shows that theres no way we could see eye to eye. Thats ridiculous.
Yes, it IS ridiculous that we cannot see eye to eye. It pisses me off to see lunatics like you gaining truck around here. The term "misogynist" is way overused in the modern discourse, but if you're having to scrape the bottom of the barrel this hard to argue against me, then I'm not sure why I should see you as anything else.
>>Basing marriage decisions on divorce law is rank paranoia even at best
>No it isnt.
Yes, it is. You are perfectly capable of preventing these nightmare scenarios. You just don't want to. I would call it pathetic if it were not so disgraceful.
>There are things I want toe accomplish and Im not going to let anything get in the way. If dying without marriage insures that then so be it.
What could possibly be worth such devotion? Actually, I can think of many answers to that question, but they're all things that a divorce couldn't possibly jeopardize.
I don't think this is about achievements at all. It sounds more to me like you're having doubts about MGTOW, and this is the last desperate grasping at straws of an ego that just doesn't want to admit it's been wrong for God only knows how long,
>This is an absurd situation that happens nowhere on Earth, never has, and never will.
Holy fucking shit, /adv/. You fucking suck at giving advice. Just fucking answer the damn question you fucking retards. Nobody gives a fuck about your point of view on divorce and shit. OP asked a fucking question about conserving his assets and you fucking fools derailed it by shoving up your asses your moral shit. Damn.
>This is an absurd situation that happens nowhere on Earth, never has, and never will.
So you are saying that as long as divorce doesnt have a ridiculous punishment, youre okay with it. Because you really dont know history if you think otherwise. Hell it wasnt until long ago that woman in japan werent forced into prostitution after a divorce. People think about it because divorce happens and there has to be a reasonable result from it.
>You are perfectly capable of preventing these nightmare scenarios
So again, youd be fine if execution were the result because you are capable of preventing them?
>they're all things that a divorce couldn't possibly jeopardize.
What is a business for $1000
He clearly is the type of person to take the law as absolute justice and never question it.
Henry VIII was no prize, and he did indeed kill two of his six wives. But there's a reason the mnemonic goes "Divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived": even a situation as fucked up as the one he created still did not reach the levels you are claiming.
>So you are saying that as long as divorce doesnt have a ridiculous punishment, youre okay with it.
Strawman. You know, for someone who claims to place such a high value on thinking things through carefully, you really suck at logic.
I already said that divorce law was in serious need of fixing. I expounded on it at some length, in fact. You are no ally of mine -I don't hold with your kind of cowardice- but we coincidentally have vaguely similar goals on that one score.
You dont even know what strawman is.
I can only assume from your vague way of dodging the question that this is your answer.
>I already said that divorce law was in serious need of fixing
So why are you complaining when someone doesnt want to accept those broken laws for marriage. Why are you so against a prenup which gives the parties involved an opportunity to work on a fixed version.
Pre-nup, which is what I plan on having my wife and I do in the future. If one of us dies and there's no agreement on who gets what, then can't the government come in and try to take as much as they want?
I know I sound like
But seriously though, who gets to settle what in cases like that?
The thing about prenups is that they get thrown out most of the time. Theres no way to marry a homeless person without having to support them in case of divorce and losing half your property. Depending on the state its literally half your property. Because the homeless person has no possessions no court will let a prenup stand.
Theres literally no way of marrying a homeless person.
>You dont even know what strawman is.
A strawman is misstating your opponent's version as an absurd and easily-defeated exaggeration, to afoid having to defeat the argument itself. Which, on fact, is exactly what you did.
>Why are you so against a prenup
I'm not. I have repeatedly called it a practical arrangement, and said that even though you shouldn't marry someone unless you'd be comfortable going no-prenup with them, you should then get the prenup anyway.
What I complain about is misusing the prenup as a substitute for trust, which frankly spells doom for the marriage before it even begins.
>If one of us dies and there's no agreement on who gets what, then can't the government come in and try to take as much as they want?
Prenups don't cover that situation anyway; that's what a will is for.
>A strawman is misstating your opponent's version as an absurd and easily-defeated exaggeration
So you dont know what a strawman is.
> that even though you shouldn't marry someone unless you'd be comfortable going no-prenup with them
So you should feel comfortable going into a marriage where divorce means death?
>What I complain about is misusing the prenup as a substitute for trust
I dont trust anyone with things that are important to me unless they vow that no matter the circumstance, theyd never hurt me and my goals. But thats not the vow a marriage makes simply because you can get a divorce. The prenup is the vow to do that.
And to help you understand what a strawman is, Im attacking a subset of your argument. Not a different argument. You argument clearly implies that you should get married no matter the consequences of marriage. At least this is how it sounds to everyone. If you are saying you argument does not imply this then answer the question.
But she can still Jew you out of your hard work.
technically theres the verbal agreement the law is holding him too. Hes lucky that they only took less than $30000.
Who actually tells their gf theyd have the assurance a wife would have. Court could have jewed him much harder for leave what that means ambiguous.
that wont get you far. having a kid + living together for a few years makes you what is called 'common law' married, and they can sue you quite the same.,
the bext you can do is a prenup but what most people dont realize is that they only protect pre-existing assets.
people dont realize that the point of marriage is to legally own everything together, so anything you make after getting married is now joint property and she is entitled to half of that.
if you talk to her you can work out a pre-marriage divorce dealing. basically you sit down and say 'alright if you got divorced, id still want to take care of you because i love you (pro-tip: if you arent willing to take care of her after you lose feelings, then dont marry her) so lets work out exactly what that would be.'
then you guys sit down and think what would be fair for her to get in a divorce, money wise.
protip: if the answer is nothing, then you shouldnt marry her. marriage means taking care of her FOREVER. thats the point of marriage. you want to take care of this person. and even if feelings fade or she just 'gets bitchy' thats what marriage is there for.
so if ur okay with that, tell her that after proposing. if she is NOT okay with that, dont marry her, shes un reasonable and not worth it.
>if you arent willing to take care of her after you lose feelings
Fucking cuck lol.
>marriage means taking care of her FOREVER. thats the point of marriage
No marriage means being together forever in marriage. You cant divorce.
only a cuck if i get married. thats why i dont.
>no marriage means being together forever in marriage
>marriage means being in marriage
do you read before you post or do you just bang ur head against the keyboard and let it happen?
>you cant divorce
legally you are the most wrong person i have ever met. marriage literally means being willing to take care of your wife, even if she divorces you, as literally no one is unaware of alimony.
if you cant accept that fact, dont marry her. why marry her?
>Of course I would. Why on Earth would I marry someone I didn't trust with my life on the line?
except women lack morality and many of them still throw men out of the cliff. :^) the problem with society is that we gave women power without the responsibility.
Robin Williams had a prenup and look at what happen to him. Do you honestly believe prenups do anything? He still had to pay an expensive alimony even with a prenup. any guy who wants to get married should just shoot themselves because it is basically the same thing.
>So you dont know what a strawman is.
That IS the definition, but fine: enlightwn me. What incorrect definition are you using?
>So you should feel comfortable going into a marriage where divorce means death?
For the right person, yes. I would. Fortunately, this is not something I, my ancestors, or descendants will ever have to worry about,
>I dont trust anyone with things that are important to me
That's your problem. You need to get over it. This will affect not only your love life, but you busoness acumen.
>And to help you understand what a strawman is, Im attacking a subset of your argument. Not a different argument.
Neither of the above sentences is true.
>You argument clearly implies that you should get married no matter the consequences of marriage.
I say no such thing.
>At least this is how it sounds to everyone.
No, it doesn't. Not even to you. You know damn well what I mean; you just don't want to admit it to yourself, because it would require you to acknowledge the ways you've stunted your own emotional development.
>If you are saying you argument does not imply this then answer the question.
I've answered it more times than it deserves. Admit defeat, little boy.
>That IS the definition
You can use things wrong when you dont know what youre talking about. In this case here.
>For the right person, yes.
enjoy having a 50% chance of dying lol. No need to think about consequences for you actions ever. You obviously dont have anything worth more than a woman to live for.
> You need to get over it
kek you just cut off the sentence. cherry picking doesnt begin to describe this.
>Neither of the above sentences is true.
So youre now trying to say that you should marry someone regardless of the consequence for divorce but not accept all consequences. You dont seem capable of logic.
>I say no such thing.
But you have repeated this.
>You know damn well what I mean
I really want to believe this. But you finally answered the question. You marry a woman if in the event of divorce you would be executed. I have things more important that a marriage to live for.
>I've answered it more times than it deserves.
Thats the first time. But it just shows you dont have anything worth living for.
>Admit defeat, little boy.
kek that personal attack. I knew you were pathetic.
>>That IS the definition
>You can use things wrong when you dont know what youre talking about. In this case here.
That'a funny, because I can't find a single place on the Internet that agrees with your definition. Naturally Wikipedia agrees with me, but so do multiple universities, and several other sites devoted to logic like fallacyfiles. This also seems to be the only piece of common ground between rationalwiki and answersingenesis, and when those two sites agree on something epistemology-related, you know you've got something special. So take your third-rate logic somewhere else, little boy.
lol you really dont know what a strawman is.
You have no idea what a fallacy is. A strawman avoids the actual argument. Not attacks an implication of the argument. Learn how logic works first.
>A strawman avoids the actual argument.
Which is what you did, little boy. Then you added some reductio ad absurdum, and topped it all off with a nice dose of appeal to false consequences. Who taught you logic anyway, /r9k/?
>Which is what you did, little boy.
the ad hominem in this sentence just proves you dont know what you are talking about. If this were true you wouldnt have been trying to desperately to dodge the question.
> reductio ad absurdum
not a fallacy. Dont use buzzwords
Try getting a college education. You have the mentality of a child but you call me a little boy. You little spite is so cute.