[SilkTaffeta]

Let's all admit we are dreaming of being someone who is a hot, rich, divorced Californian.

Oh, wait, is that being or doing?

[Elizabetta]

	Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Now this always strikes me as being utter bullshit given that the only reason the divorcee is getting the money is because she was married to Mr xxxxx,

Your above remark highlights the beauty of tabloid newspapers; they know how to get straight to the point and tug violently at the emotions of man. Lets plough through your passionate rant...

	Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	only he was capable or talented enough to make that much money - she had no part in it no matter how many dishes she scrubbed.

Once again you make a passionate assumption. There is a saying that I've heard being rephrased countless of times by powerful and wealthy men which is: behind every great man there's a great woman. These men, one being the late Steve Jobs, have emotively stated that they wouldn't be where they were in life if it wasn't for their supportive and loving wife; who in most cases sacrifices her own life in order for her husband to excel in whatever he is doing. However, I am aware that this may not be the case in all marriages but unlike you I don't choose to paint all marriages with one brush.

	Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The point being that wimminz are not able to make big money of account of being generally less talented, greedy, opportunist and needy - thats why they are called the weaker sex

I'm not going to take the above point as any form of a serious debatable challenge so swiftly moving on...

	Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	whilst the idea of a alpha woman going out to work and earning much more money than her husband possibly could while he looks after the brood and cooks the meals is still considered taboo, if not nigh on freaky

.

Do INTJs care about what society deems to be taboo? Get on with your own life and stop being influenced by what does not concern you.

[ahmedwehbe]

50/50 is stupid.

It should be:

Women get what they brought with them and what they recieved during the marriage.

If I have 500 millions, and was forced to split it with someone that is suddenly acting like a hoe, I would rather pay 1 million to make her dissapear.

To me, that's the most logical solution, even if I end up in jail, my kids and family would still get lots of cash later when I die.

Sounds extreme, but so is taking half of someones property without any chance of protecting yourself.

[Causa Mortis]

Originally Posted by ahmedwehbe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

50/50 is stupid. It should be: Women get what they brought with them and what they recieved during the marriage. If I have 500 millions, and was forced to split it with someone that is suddenly acting like a hoe, I would rather pay 1 million to make her dissapear. To me, that's the most logical solution, even if I end up in jail, my kids and family would still get lots of cash later when I die. Sounds extreme, but so is taking half of someones property without any chance of protecting yourself.

You should tell that to girls on your first date. You'll have lots of second dates.

[fueledtocreate]

I care only enough to post that I don't care about celebrities or their marriages.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by ahmedwehbe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	50/50 is stupid. It should be: Women get what they brought with them and what they recieved during the marriage.

This is a slightly gendered statement.

[AlfredSchnittke]

Anyone here actually done marital law?

Prenups really don't do that much.

Strictly speaking, better to have one than not.

But they are very, very easily broken by your actual conduct. It's like like you can sign a prenup and then still have joint bank accounts, or both own a house together.

Basically, if you get a prenup you now have the right to own two separate cars, houses, etc... with two separate bank accounts.

At the end of the marriage the other person won't be able to claim any of it, unless they can give evidence that both of you really did own it. Which really good lawyers can show in all kinds of tricky ways.

In some instances, if you let some shit slip during your marriage, you could be worse off with a prenup than without. Say you owned a house, and your wife owned a house, but you always stayed in one of the houses (11 months out of the year for 5 years). You get divorced, you had a prenup. She can claim that actually the house you lived in was a shared asset used by both of you, and thus community property.

With good enough lawyers she might get half the house, plus 100% ownership of her house (she just argues that you were only ever a guest in her house, which makes sense to the court since you were only there 1/12th out of the year at most).

No prenup would've meant you both just got 50/50 of each other's houses, which would be more of a hassle, but a net gain for you compared with this situation.

[sunitaishot]

Many couples have separate bank accounts. many also have property outlined for one person or the other.

I feel divorce property should be decided on personal needs, who has contributed the most, and who has the most earning potential. The entire point of a divorce hearing is to determine this, in addition to the reason why the divorce is sought of course.

50/50 is silly, since finances between partners are not always equal. it's a holdover from a more conservative and sentimental era, in which "two have become one" and such nonsense. I frankly don't give a shit what 19th century people thought about marriage.

---------- Post added 06-13-2012 at 06:29 PM ----------

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Anyone here actually done marital law? Prenups really don't do that much. Strictly speaking, better to have one than not. But they are very, very easily broken by your actual conduct. It's like like you can sign a prenup and then still have joint bank accounts, or both own a house together. Basically, if you get a prenup you now have the right to own two separate cars, houses, etc... with two separate bank accounts. At the end of the marriage the other person won't be able to claim any of it, unless they can give evidence that both of you really did own it. Which really good lawyers can show in all kinds of tricky ways. In some instances, if you let some shit slip during your marriage, you could be worse off with a prenup than without. Say you owned a house, and your wife owned a house, but you always stayed in one of the houses (11 months out of the year for 5 years). You get divorced, you had a prenup. She can claim that actually the house you lived in was a shared asset used by both of you, and thus community property. With good enough lawyers she might get half the house, plus 100% ownership of her house (she just argues that you were only ever a guest in her house, which makes sense to the court since you were only there 1/12th out of the year at most). No prenup would've meant you both just got 50/50 of each other's houses, which would be more of a hassle, but a net gain for you compared with this situation.

Well it differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 50/50 is still a bullshit ideal.

[Zsych]

Lots and lots of necroposting happening lately.

	Originally Posted by zibber
	This is a slightly gendered statement.

Yes, the working assumption is that men suffer more often due to this system.

--

Anyway, marriage like many other things, seems to be in need of review. Unfortunately, there are no massive lobbies to stop injustices from happening in this area.
Perhaps because they more often cause suffering for men, or perhaps they more often cause suffering to rich people - both of whom are, as we all know, the greatest evils in the world.

[Werewolfen]

I wonder what Ahnold paid Maria. That's one divorce case where if Maria cleaned him out I would say it serves him right. 50% of his net worth would be a shitload of bread.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Instead of going into a rant, I'll just state that people need to learn the difference between marital and non-marital assets and how to avoid co-mingling non-marital assets.

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Anyone here actually done marital law? Prenups really don't do that much. Strictly speaking, better to have one than not. But they are very, very easily broken by your actual conduct. It's like like you can sign a prenup and then still have joint bank accounts, or both own a house together. Basically, if you get a prenup you now have the right to own two separate cars, houses, etc... with two separate bank accounts. At the end of the marriage the other person won't be able to claim any of it, unless they can give evidence that both of you really did own it. Which really good lawyers can show in all kinds of tricky ways. In some instances, if you let some shit slip during your marriage, you could be worse off with a prenup than without. Say you owned a house, and your wife owned a house, but you always stayed in one of the houses (11 months out of the year for 5 years). You get divorced, you had a prenup. She can claim that actually the house you lived in was a shared asset used by both of you, and thus community property. With good enough lawyers she might get half the house, plus 100% ownership of her house (she just argues that you were only ever a guest in her house, which makes sense to the court since you were only there 1/12th out of the year at most). No prenup would've meant you both just got 50/50 of each other's houses, which would be more of a hassle, but a net gain for you compared with this situation.

Refer to my post above that I bumped instead of rewriting it. If people are too stupid to protect themselves, then they deserve to be ass-raped.

[PlungingHornets]

I double dog dare you to research divorce and poverty in elderly women. Marriage ending in divorce is often a raw deal for women. Whatever payout you get from the divorce doesn't compensate for a lifetime of lost earnings.

Don't give up career for love, ladies and gents.

[sunitaishot]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Refer to my post above that I bumped instead of rewriting it. If people are too stupid to protect themselves, then they deserve to be ass-raped.

So what is the inherent good in a 50/50 split?

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by sunitaishot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So what is the inherent good in a 50/50 split?

Firstly, there's no such thing as inherent good or bad. Next, buyer beware regardless of gender.

[sunitaishot]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Firstly, there's no such thing as inherent good or bad.

Agreed. And? he is citing it as an inherent good without challenge, and was requesting if he can expand on his opinion.

	Next, buyer beware regardless of gender.

I don't agree (with your point or caveat emptor as a concept). I feel assets should be divided based on needs, if children are involved, earning potential, etc. It's more realistic and fairer. 50/50 splits' rationale stems from an archaic era, as most married couples have specifically outlined property. This includes bank accounts (many don't have joint bank accounts), credit cards, cars, clothing/apparel, etc. I wouldn't say legal jurisdictions that follow this model have it inherently right, but IMO it leads to a better outcome.

[Imperatrix]

	Originally Posted by PlungingHornets To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I double dog dare you to research divorce and poverty in elderly women. Marriage ending in divorce is often a raw deal for women. Whatever payout you get from the divorce doesn't compensate for a lifetime of lost earnings. Don't give up career for love, ladies and gents.

No kidding. My soon-to-be ex-husband would be a drunk loser if it wasn't for me kicking his ass up the ladder of success for the last 12 years. I am by far the more ambitious, intelligent person, so how the hell did I end up scrubbing pots? Sacrificing my career for his?

The thing is, with me, I barely want anything from him, and we have three kids. All I want him to pay for is the car payment and insurance, plus any needs his children have. I'm ready to be supremely reasonable in all of this. I don't want him to take care of me in the manner to which I have grown accustomed. I think I can do better than that on my own.

Screw marriage. It's a total scam.

[catzmeow]

	Originally Posted by Imperatrix To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am by far the more ambitious, intelligent person, so how the hell did I end up scrubbing pots? Sacrificing my career for his?

Maybe you should go to your thinking place and contemplate these questions.

[thod]

All these posters that used to be married to dysfunctional people. Odd that we should only attract the sane halves of these ex couples.

[catzmeow]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	All these posters that used to be married to dysfunctional people. Odd that we should only attract the sane halves of these ex couples.

If you'd like to meet the crazy half of my marriage, I can direct you to his facebook page for comparison's sake.

[Storm]

Journalists love to make up sensational headlines. She could, theoretically get <made-up giant number from journalist who know nothing about the intricacies of divorce law>! Buy our paper and be outraged!

Here's what I'm betting these journalist do. They find out how much the actor is worth based on estimates from wikipedia or something. Then they assume one spouse is entitled to half that without any regard for marital estates, separate property, and lots of other factors.

[Zsych]

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you'd like to meet the crazy half of my marriage, I can direct you to his facebook page for comparison's sake.

Is there interesting and crazy stuff there?

[catzmeow]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is there interesting and crazy stuff there?

I think so. Right now, my ex is pissing off his family members by spewing anti-gay rhetoric (he has 3 nieces/nephews) who are gay), and calling President Obama "the Dictator." About 97% of his posts are political in nature, the other 3% are lovey dovey exchanges with his wife (who is 25 years younger than he is). I find it all rather humorous.