6 ms·

He made a financial agreement with his wife to share 50-50. That's what a marriage is, it's a legally binding contract. If he wanted a pre-nup, he should have

He made a financial agreement with his wife to share 50-50. That's what a marriage is, it's a legally binding contract. If he wanted a pre-nup, he should have gotten one before entering into that contract, i.e. the marriage. But he didn't. And he wants to alter the terms of the deal now, as a post-nup? After years of partnership? Oh hell no. If I were his wife, I would seriously consider leaving him over this. Walk, with "his" assets that were always his-and-hers.

ryanmarsh 9y ago
If a change of mind is all it takes to "walk with his assets" then he doesn't really have any reason to believe his share is "50-50" does he? Marriage, for heterosexual men, is the worst kind of contract. The terms of the contract are not agreed to in writing up front. If they are agreed to beforehand (prenup), a judge can disregard the terms in part or whole during divorce proceedings. Can anyone think of a worse kind of contract than this? Every married heterosexual man has at least one acquaintance who was "divorce raped". All of the virtue signaling in the world by a man's wife does not protect him from a change of her heart.
- sudosteph 9y ago
  > Every married heterosexual man has at least one acquaintance who was "divorce raped". All of the virtue signaling in the world by a man's wife does not protect him from a change of her heart. Eww. Do they actually call it that? That's messed up. Anyhow, nobody is forcing anyone to get married. It's no different from any other contract. If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet.
  - ryanmarsh 9y ago
    If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet Thankfully many guys younger than I are waking up to the reality of marriage. Unfortunately my generation was fed the bullshit about "God's plan". The truth of marriage and divorce needs to be communicated to all young men lest we continue to end up broke and unable to see our children.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Unfortunately my generation was fed the bullshit about "God's plan". Are you, like, what, 120 or something? Even Ametica’s (unusually large minority for a first world country, but still) religious fanatics today mostly are extremely pragmatic (arguably, downright libertine) when it comes to the male position with regard to marriage. I don't know what line you may have been fed, but I think you are grossly mischaracterizing any living generation with your generalization.
      - ryanmarsh 9y ago
        I shouldn’t have said “my generation” too broad. Young Christians I grew up with and around.
    - Blackstone4 9y ago
      Good point - I feel like marriage is glorified and society is telling us without it you will not be happy. This is coming from Hollywood, religion etc. People are waking up to the fact that marriage may not suit everyone and divorce can be unfair in some cases. My case in point. My wife cheated on me after a year of marriage but because I was the higher earner I had to give her all the money I earned that year. Not to mention the fact I didn't get any credit for having paid off all of her car loan with pre-martial money.
    - 32f247e5 9y ago
      Absolutely. Heres one fucked up example. You thought of an idea; get married; divorced; you implement the idea/make money off it;. Goodluck cause now state gets to decide how much ip-right/money should the ex-spouse get.
      - sudosteph 9y ago
        Citation? Everything I'm reading says that your property, including IP, that was exclusively yours before marriage, is yours when you get divorced. Likewise, I don't see any way for post-divorce ideas and businesses to be considered "community property". Looking at WA laws though.
  - 32f247e5 9y ago
    > If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet. There are no terms on the sheet (marriage licence). State makes up rules as it go.
    - Blackstone4 9y ago
      Would you sign a contract which can be arbitrarily changed by a third party at any point? Would you signed a contact where the terms are not clearly defined? This is the state of marriage today in many Western countries
      - 32f247e5 9y ago
        I would not. Did you mean to reply to parent comment ?
        Blackstone4 9y ago
        Maybe I could have been more clear. I agree with you and was echoing your sentiment with a couple of questions to back up your point.
      - sudosteph 9y ago
        1. The terms are clearly defined in legislation 2. Do you refuse to drive a car for the same reason?
        Blackstone4 9y ago
        1. It depends on your jurisdiction. Often they are not clearly defined. In part because there are so many possibilities and it's difficult to write rules to handle all of them. This is where judges come in. If you go to court, it will depend on the judge and their take on the situation. That aside, my original point stands. You sign a marriage contract and the state legislature can change the terms of the contract without your consent. 2. Could you elaborate? I couldn't understand the point you made. As far as I'm aware you don't sign a contract when you drive a car.
    - 9y ago
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't take HN threads into flamewar hell.
  - ryanmarsh 9y ago
    You’re gonna have to help me out here. I have no idea what I did to make this thread a “flamewar hell”.
    - dang 9y ago
      The internet trope of men's supposed resentments about what a shitty deal marriage is, etc. etc. blah blah, is unsubstantive flamebait. Generic resentment is impossible to engage with other than ideologically, which leads directly to ideological flamewars, all of which are off topic for Hacker News. If you've read the site guidelines and understand its mandate, it should be easy to see why: such discussions are all the same, and there's no intellectual curiosity in them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
antisthenes 9y ago
> If I were his wife, I would seriously consider leaving him over this. Walk, with "his" assets that were always his-and-hers People like you are exactly why people want to sign pre-nups in the first place. > He made a financial agreement with his wife to share 50-50. That's what a marriage is, it's a legally binding contract. If it was always clearly cut as a 50-50 split set in stone, there would be no need for as many divorce lawyers. > And he wants to alter the terms of the deal now, as a post-nup? After years of partnership? Oh hell no. People want to alter the terms of the deal all the time, a divorce is usually one of those alterations, most frequently initiated by women. After years of partnership. Why this is surprising to anyone is beyond me. Is it really that different in California? You are correct in one thing though - he probably shouldn't have gotten married to begin with.
- dang 9y ago
  > People like you Taking HN threads into personal attack is a sure way to make a flamewar worse. Please have the self-control to resist this when commenting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - lostmsu 9y ago
    Isn't he just being factual though? The comment he replied to was also a personal attack of sorts on the husband from the story.
    - dang 9y ago
      "Just being factual" isn't a valid defense. Even if one assumes 100% factiness, that's not all that matters. There are infinitely many facts. Which one chooses, how one expresses them, and what their likely effect is in context, are just three of the other issues at play. As for the GP comment, I can see why it would feel that way but I didn't read it that way myself. There's obviously a lot of interpretation involved in these things.
    - antisthenes 9y ago
Blackstone4 9y ago
You made a good point about marriage being a financial agreement. I feel many young people are not fully aware of what they are going into when they get married (me included). There's a lack of education. Then when they get into the real world and have an understanding of how sometimes unbalanced divorce law can be, they are like "wait, how did this happen".

ryanmarsh 9y ago

If a change of mind is all it takes to "walk with his assets" then he doesn't really have any reason to believe his share is "50-50" does he? Marriage, for heterosexual men, is the worst kind of contract. The terms of the contract are not agreed to in writing up front. If they are agreed to beforehand (prenup), a judge can disregard the terms in part or whole during divorce proceedings. Can anyone think of a worse kind of contract than this? Every married heterosexual man has at least one acquaintance who was "divorce raped". All of the virtue signaling in the world by a man's wife does not protect him from a change of her heart.

sudosteph 9y ago
> Every married heterosexual man has at least one acquaintance who was "divorce raped". All of the virtue signaling in the world by a man's wife does not protect him from a change of her heart. Eww. Do they actually call it that? That's messed up. Anyhow, nobody is forcing anyone to get married. It's no different from any other contract. If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet.
- ryanmarsh 9y ago
  If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet Thankfully many guys younger than I are waking up to the reality of marriage. Unfortunately my generation was fed the bullshit about "God's plan". The truth of marriage and divorce needs to be communicated to all young men lest we continue to end up broke and unable to see our children.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Unfortunately my generation was fed the bullshit about "God's plan". Are you, like, what, 120 or something? Even Ametica’s (unusually large minority for a first world country, but still) religious fanatics today mostly are extremely pragmatic (arguably, downright libertine) when it comes to the male position with regard to marriage. I don't know what line you may have been fed, but I think you are grossly mischaracterizing any living generation with your generalization.
    - ryanmarsh 9y ago
      I shouldn’t have said “my generation” too broad. Young Christians I grew up with and around.
  - Blackstone4 9y ago
    Good point - I feel like marriage is glorified and society is telling us without it you will not be happy. This is coming from Hollywood, religion etc. People are waking up to the fact that marriage may not suit everyone and divorce can be unfair in some cases. My case in point. My wife cheated on me after a year of marriage but because I was the higher earner I had to give her all the money I earned that year. Not to mention the fact I didn't get any credit for having paid off all of her car loan with pre-martial money.
  - 32f247e5 9y ago
    Absolutely. Heres one fucked up example. You thought of an idea; get married; divorced; you implement the idea/make money off it;. Goodluck cause now state gets to decide how much ip-right/money should the ex-spouse get.
    - sudosteph 9y ago
      Citation? Everything I'm reading says that your property, including IP, that was exclusively yours before marriage, is yours when you get divorced. Likewise, I don't see any way for post-divorce ideas and businesses to be considered "community property". Looking at WA laws though.
- 32f247e5 9y ago
  > If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet. There are no terms on the sheet (marriage licence). State makes up rules as it go.
  - Blackstone4 9y ago
    Would you sign a contract which can be arbitrarily changed by a third party at any point? Would you signed a contact where the terms are not clearly defined? This is the state of marriage today in many Western countries
    - 32f247e5 9y ago
      I would not. Did you mean to reply to parent comment ?
      - Blackstone4 9y ago
        Maybe I could have been more clear. I agree with you and was echoing your sentiment with a couple of questions to back up your point.
    - sudosteph 9y ago
      1. The terms are clearly defined in legislation 2. Do you refuse to drive a car for the same reason?
      - Blackstone4 9y ago
        1. It depends on your jurisdiction. Often they are not clearly defined. In part because there are so many possibilities and it's difficult to write rules to handle all of them. This is where judges come in. If you go to court, it will depend on the judge and their take on the situation. That aside, my original point stands. You sign a marriage contract and the state legislature can change the terms of the contract without your consent. 2. Could you elaborate? I couldn't understand the point you made. As far as I'm aware you don't sign a contract when you drive a car.
  - 9y ago
dang 9y ago
Please don't take HN threads into flamewar hell.
- ryanmarsh 9y ago
  You’re gonna have to help me out here. I have no idea what I did to make this thread a “flamewar hell”.
  - dang 9y ago
    The internet trope of men's supposed resentments about what a shitty deal marriage is, etc. etc. blah blah, is unsubstantive flamebait. Generic resentment is impossible to engage with other than ideologically, which leads directly to ideological flamewars, all of which are off topic for Hacker News. If you've read the site guidelines and understand its mandate, it should be easy to see why: such discussions are all the same, and there's no intellectual curiosity in them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

antisthenes 9y ago

> If I were his wife, I would seriously consider leaving him over this. Walk, with "his" assets that were always his-and-hers People like you are exactly why people want to sign pre-nups in the first place. > He made a financial agreement with his wife to share 50-50. That's what a marriage is, it's a legally binding contract. If it was always clearly cut as a 50-50 split set in stone, there would be no need for as many divorce lawyers. > And he wants to alter the terms of the deal now, as a post-nup? After years of partnership? Oh hell no. People want to alter the terms of the deal all the time, a divorce is usually one of those alterations, most frequently initiated by women. After years of partnership. Why this is surprising to anyone is beyond me. Is it really that different in California? You are correct in one thing though - he probably shouldn't have gotten married to begin with.

dang 9y ago
> People like you Taking HN threads into personal attack is a sure way to make a flamewar worse. Please have the self-control to resist this when commenting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lostmsu 9y ago
  Isn't he just being factual though? The comment he replied to was also a personal attack of sorts on the husband from the story.
  - dang 9y ago
    "Just being factual" isn't a valid defense. Even if one assumes 100% factiness, that's not all that matters. There are infinitely many facts. Which one chooses, how one expresses them, and what their likely effect is in context, are just three of the other issues at play. As for the GP comment, I can see why it would feel that way but I didn't read it that way myself. There's obviously a lot of interpretation involved in these things.
  - antisthenes 9y ago

Blackstone4 9y ago

You made a good point about marriage being a financial agreement. I feel many young people are not fully aware of what they are going into when they get married (me included). There's a lack of education. Then when they get into the real world and have an understanding of how sometimes unbalanced divorce law can be, they are like "wait, how did this happen".