3 ms·

Not getting married or having an overly aggressive lopsided prenup can result in enormous power imbalances that inhibit having the true partnership which is nec

by nullc 7y ago

Not getting married or having an overly aggressive lopsided prenup can result in enormous power imbalances that inhibit having the true partnership which is necessary for a successful relationship. Unless your relationship never was and never is intended to be a partnership between equals. But if so you owe it to yourself and your partner to be clear about that. By all means, set things up so that an acrimonious divorce won't require selling an illiquid business or whatnot. But if you go into thing with entirely a whats-mine-is-mine then there are real questions as to the purpose of your relationship in the first place.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hardwaresofton 7y ago
> Not getting married or having an overly aggressive lopsided prenup can result in enormous power imbalances that inhibit having the true partnership which is necessary for a successful relationship. I agree with this --If a prenup is creating/enforcing a large power imbalance, at least one (likely both) people need to seriously consider what they're getting into. I disagree with the rest of the things you said after that though: > true partnership which is necessary for a successful relationship > Unless your relationship never was and never is intended to be a partnership between equals. But if so you owe it to yourself and your partner to be clear about that. > to the purpose of your relationship in the first place. This argument seems like it is very subjective. To be fair I do think most societies have generally gotten to consensus on what successful relationships looks like in broad strokes, but I think that kind of consensus falls apart when you really start looking closely at it. Even simple things like "how is the burden of child rearing split" start to create huge fractures. The phrase "partnership between equals" does not preclude prenups -- the details of the partnership are between the people entering into it. It's quite possibly extremely naive but ideally both people have a clear understanding of the nature of the relationship and agree on the future enough to put that into written terms they agree with. If someone is creating a lopsided prenup in an attempt to hoard wealth on one side because of a lack of trust... Maybe you shouldn't bind yourself to that particular person for life? People get into relationships for lots of reasons. Some cultures pair people up for social advancement, others try to pair for love, others pair with a sense of duty/obligation/necessity, and some cultures don't pair up at all. Marriage is a covenant -- saying/writing what you expect down is the best way to make sure another person knows it, whether finances are involved or not. I'd say a prenup is a really good indicator to both sides of the potential power imbalance -- just like a proposal, it shouldn't be a surprise.
- nullc 7y ago
  > The phrase "partnership between equals" does not preclude prenups Indeed, it doesn't. But a lot of the "prenup" discussions I see on the internet are absurd-- stuff like marital assets will be split on the ratio of incomes during the marriage or even worse. I've frequently seen people fail to realize that highly imbalanced agreements aren't actually in their favor even if they're nominally in their favor because of the power issues they create. Some traditional marriage arrangements simply don't make sense in a modern western civilization where women treated in a much more economically and socially equal way...
david38 7y ago
Power imbalance is the consequence of marrying up/down economically. Are you saying she should be able to control the fate of his company just because she’s married to him? You think this remotely makes her qualified? Attitudes like this are what force people to marry within their class which is bad for society in the long run. By being able to marry outside your class without fear of being wiped out, a (usually) woman can move up (in addition to all the other ways available to her) and likely her family gets access to some of that. To see what happens when people must marry within their class, look no further than European nobility. Seriously, say I am building a company worth 100m on paper. You think if I marry someone she should be entitled to a large fraction of that? Why? Let’s assume she doesn’t do anything with the business. Say she was an accountant when we met and continues to be one after. Sure, she can’t tell me what mansion to buy, etc, but those are things to work out. Am I a guy to totally ignore her desires? If so, she shouldn’t marry me. Flip this around. Suppose I’m a lowly programmer. I marry a super rich supermodel. Am I entitled to her money just because?
- alehul 7y ago
  > Seriously, say I am building a company worth 100m on paper. You think if I marry someone she should be entitled to a large fraction of that? Why? Let’s assume she doesn’t do anything with the business. Say she was an accountant when we met and continues to be one after. Sure, she can’t tell me what mansion to buy, etc, but those are things to work out. Am I a guy to totally ignore her desires? If so, she shouldn’t marry me. Alternatively, say you are building a company worth 100m on paper, and as a result, when she ends up pregnant with kids, you insist that she should work less hours, or maybe stop working altogether, in order to take care of them. (After all, you are busy building a company worth 100m on paper). You don't think she is entitled to a large fraction of that? Why not? Marriage isn't meant for you to protect your winnings from the Silicon Valley startup lottery; it's meant to allow for partnership, which includes earning your way in the world together and making choices together, to benefit the family, with security for both partners in the worst-case event of a divorce.
  - thatoneuser 7y ago
    Again flip it around. Is he entitled to half of the super models pagentry winnings and endorsements just for helping raise kids? It's easy to estimate how much his life earnings decreased raising the kids. Estimate it and add 30% and that's the limit. There's no reason why the party should just absorb half of a person's wealth for marrying and divorcing them.

by nullc 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hardwaresofton 7y ago

> Not getting married or having an overly aggressive lopsided prenup can result in enormous power imbalances that inhibit having the true partnership which is necessary for a successful relationship. I agree with this --If a prenup is creating/enforcing a large power imbalance, at least one (likely both) people need to seriously consider what they're getting into. I disagree with the rest of the things you said after that though: > true partnership which is necessary for a successful relationship > Unless your relationship never was and never is intended to be a partnership between equals. But if so you owe it to yourself and your partner to be clear about that. > to the purpose of your relationship in the first place. This argument seems like it is very subjective. To be fair I do think most societies have generally gotten to consensus on what successful relationships looks like in broad strokes, but I think that kind of consensus falls apart when you really start looking closely at it. Even simple things like "how is the burden of child rearing split" start to create huge fractures. The phrase "partnership between equals" does not preclude prenups -- the details of the partnership are between the people entering into it. It's quite possibly extremely naive but ideally both people have a clear understanding of the nature of the relationship and agree on the future enough to put that into written terms they agree with. If someone is creating a lopsided prenup in an attempt to hoard wealth on one side because of a lack of trust... Maybe you shouldn't bind yourself to that particular person for life? People get into relationships for lots of reasons. Some cultures pair people up for social advancement, others try to pair for love, others pair with a sense of duty/obligation/necessity, and some cultures don't pair up at all. Marriage is a covenant -- saying/writing what you expect down is the best way to make sure another person knows it, whether finances are involved or not. I'd say a prenup is a really good indicator to both sides of the potential power imbalance -- just like a proposal, it shouldn't be a surprise.

nullc 7y ago
> The phrase "partnership between equals" does not preclude prenups Indeed, it doesn't. But a lot of the "prenup" discussions I see on the internet are absurd-- stuff like marital assets will be split on the ratio of incomes during the marriage or even worse. I've frequently seen people fail to realize that highly imbalanced agreements aren't actually in their favor even if they're nominally in their favor because of the power issues they create. Some traditional marriage arrangements simply don't make sense in a modern western civilization where women treated in a much more economically and socially equal way...

david38 7y ago

Power imbalance is the consequence of marrying up/down economically. Are you saying she should be able to control the fate of his company just because she’s married to him? You think this remotely makes her qualified? Attitudes like this are what force people to marry within their class which is bad for society in the long run. By being able to marry outside your class without fear of being wiped out, a (usually) woman can move up (in addition to all the other ways available to her) and likely her family gets access to some of that. To see what happens when people must marry within their class, look no further than European nobility. Seriously, say I am building a company worth 100m on paper. You think if I marry someone she should be entitled to a large fraction of that? Why? Let’s assume she doesn’t do anything with the business. Say she was an accountant when we met and continues to be one after. Sure, she can’t tell me what mansion to buy, etc, but those are things to work out. Am I a guy to totally ignore her desires? If so, she shouldn’t marry me. Flip this around. Suppose I’m a lowly programmer. I marry a super rich supermodel. Am I entitled to her money just because?

alehul 7y ago
> Seriously, say I am building a company worth 100m on paper. You think if I marry someone she should be entitled to a large fraction of that? Why? Let’s assume she doesn’t do anything with the business. Say she was an accountant when we met and continues to be one after. Sure, she can’t tell me what mansion to buy, etc, but those are things to work out. Am I a guy to totally ignore her desires? If so, she shouldn’t marry me. Alternatively, say you are building a company worth 100m on paper, and as a result, when she ends up pregnant with kids, you insist that she should work less hours, or maybe stop working altogether, in order to take care of them. (After all, you are busy building a company worth 100m on paper). You don't think she is entitled to a large fraction of that? Why not? Marriage isn't meant for you to protect your winnings from the Silicon Valley startup lottery; it's meant to allow for partnership, which includes earning your way in the world together and making choices together, to benefit the family, with security for both partners in the worst-case event of a divorce.
- thatoneuser 7y ago
  Again flip it around. Is he entitled to half of the super models pagentry winnings and endorsements just for helping raise kids? It's easy to estimate how much his life earnings decreased raising the kids. Estimate it and add 30% and that's the limit. There's no reason why the party should just absorb half of a person's wealth for marrying and divorcing them.