~ archived since 2018 ~
~ archived since 2018 ~
| Upvotes | Title | Category | Author | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|
| Upvotes | Comment on | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | It upsets me when men think I'm silly for wanting a pre-nup agreement.I was never arguing that they were a bad thing, but that their use for women is minimal, due to the way the courts apply them. Possibly, but I still don't find myself silly (which was the original discussion, in which you compared a woman asking for a pre-nup to a woman wearing a jock-strap) for choosing to not wager my hard-earned money on the "probability" that the courts will act in my favour. Better to be safe than sorry :) | /r/MensRights | 26/02/13 04:09 PM |
| 2 | It upsets me when men think I'm silly for wanting a pre-nup agreement.That certainly sounds like she would be worse off, relatively speaking. "Not worse-off" in the sense that she will not end up having less money than him. But she could end up with less than what she would have kept had she had a pre-nup. But the odds of this happening are quite low, even without a prenup. The odds of this happening are only as low as the odds of her having more assets/money than her husband around the divorce. If the law is to split everything 50/50 without a pre-nup, more often… | /r/MensRights | 23/02/13 04:23 AM |
| 1 | It upsets me when men think I'm silly for wanting a pre-nup agreement.When I say she can lose, I don't mean in the sense that she will come out in a worse-off situation than her ex. I simply mean that she may lose some of her hard-earned money to her ex. She'll probably never be placed in a "bad" situation by the court, so it's really not the end of the world if she doesn't have a pre-nup, but she could lose some of "what she worked for" so-to-speak, which is all I meant by incurring a net loss. That really might not be a big deal to some, but depending how much m… | /r/MensRights | 22/02/13 03:48 AM |
| 1 | It upsets me when men think I'm silly for wanting a pre-nup agreement.Actually, I live in Quebec, Canada; and I from what I've read on pre-nup thus far, I haven't seen any indication that they do not hold significant legal bearing, however, they must be notarized. There is are certain assets and debts that are shared by the couple, but everything else is divided according to either A) the default setting, or B) the terms of your notarized pre-nup. My point is that even if the woman makes more money, the odds of things being unevenly divided against her favour are … | /r/MensRights | 21/02/13 02:32 AM |
| 1 | It upsets me when men think I'm silly for wanting a pre-nup agreement.You say that as if it's the deciding factor in divorce court :/< I suppose it depends on where you live, since it seems that in some places, pre-nups don't hold much legal bearing. However, in places where they do, having a pre-nup IS a deciding factor in divorce court as far as division of assets is concerned. Therefore, if a woman believes that she will accumulate more money/assets over time than her husband, and wishes to protect herself from losing those assets if ever a divorce should occur… | /r/MensRights | 21/02/13 02:06 AM |
| 0 | It upsets me when men think I'm silly for wanting a pre-nup agreement.I find your comment silly. A pre-nup could obviously offer some protection to a woman in the event that she has acquired more money/assets than her husband at the time of the divorce. So clearly, any woman who is confident in her earning ability could potentially find getting a pre-nup useful. | /r/MensRights | 21/02/13 01:02 AM |
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter