Discussion in 'Black Relationships' started by Destee, Jul 10, 2002.
Would you be offended if asked to sign a prenuptial agreement?
Would you sign it?
I would not want to marry a man whose income was starkly greater (or less) than mine to begin with. If our incomes are comparable (or at least no major gap), there would be no need for prenuptials. Just split everything 50/50 in case of a split.
No. I would not be offended. As I'm signing her's ... she would be signing mine
I wanted to ask you the same or similar question Kemetstry ask as well.
ZeroGravity ... thank you for joining us and participating
There was a time, when thinking on prenuptial agreements (not that anyone has ever asked me to sign one), I thought I'd be offended, hurt, disappointed, etc., that someone would ask this of me. I thought it meant that they were "speaking into existence" the demise of our marriage, by anticipating and preparing for it. I thought it meant they didn't trust me. I thought it was an indication that they weren't as dedicated to making the marriage a success. I thought it would be best if we didn't get married at all ... if they were already thinking such things.
My thinking has changed. While still, no one has asked me to sign one ... I think it would not "hurt" me to consider it and perhaps even accept such an arrangement if I could live with the particulars. I'm like you ZeroGravity, we'd both be signing one because I'd have to be sure I get to keep all of my Billie Holiday collection if/when the marriage dissolves.
Bottomline ... I'd rather not be asked, but wouldn't get too crazy if I were.
Nia ... ... so glad to have you back in the house Sis. Thanks for chiming in on this.
Kemetstry ... I posed the question(s) wrong, because I can't tell what you are saying "No" to ...
Destee ... Thanks for the welcome. I too at some point, when I was younger, felt that way about prenuptials....mainly because I didn't understand them and because I had nothing to protect. I would guess that for the majority of society, prenuptial agreements are probably not necessary for young married couples, but entering second marriages and especially if you have children, I think a "pa" should be considered. It's almost evident that we choose our mates poorly (based on the high divorce rate) for whatever reason and we all know 50/50 don't work in a relationship (if it's less than 110% you're selling the relationship short) and dividing material things 50/50 when the love is gone doesn't work either. I can't chance my children's future on fate like that.
We have no claim to our future mate's 401k or investments so why be concerned about it...that sweat equity was not for us. We were no where in the picture then, but now EVERYTHING his/hers suddenly belongs to US? We have to get pass this.
If you have children, we must protect them, not only physically but financially as well. Prenuptial agreements I know are hard to swallow sometimes but if you have something worth protecting, I would strongly consider it...I think they are worth it.
A few reasons.
1. Although I have no qualms about (and do enjoy) mingling with "rich" folk in a social setting, when it comes to being one-on-one with a HIGH income bracket man who is seriously romantically interested, I'm just not with it. Why? Because they tend to act bourgeois, and that is not me.
I dated a brother a couple of years ago who came from a wealthy family, and has been pampered all his life. We had a lot in common otherwise, very similar interests, etc. but when it really came down to it, I really wasn't comfortable with him. He was even bourgeois intellectually, and I am a sucker for intellectuals. In addition, he had experienced none of the many struggles I have, which made me question how he might fare should there ever come a hardship, or if he didn't have his parents (and their bank account) to fall back on. If I'm going to date someone who is very wealthy, it will have to be a brother who attained wealth through legitimate entrepreneurship, but someone who has at least had SOME experience as a "have not".
2. I do not wish to be dependent (at least not financially) on anyone. To me, a marriage is supposed to be about pooling resources (though not only economic resources), and if one party has a vastly greater net worth, that means the other is going to be getting "carried" by the former. I want neither to carry nor be carried. We must advance together, side by side.
I have seen too many situations where the less fortunate wife is treated more or less like a stepchild, and too many other situations where the less fortunate husband winds up mooching off the more fortunate wife.
3. If I am going to live large, I want to do so because I have earned that position, not because someone came along and just gave me their material gain. Nor do I want a man to come along and reap the rewards of my labor, with little to nothing to offer as a match.
Thank you very much, Destee , for the welcome back (awww, she missed me, y'all ).
I would love to pop my name down fast so no one be hurt
or rip if it should end ....yes i will sign !
Kemetstry, why do you always "go there" with me?
The man who is a moocher is the one who takes advantage of the woman's earnings, and is too lazy or low-achieving to hold up his own end. I can cite too many examples. She bought the house TOTALLY ON HER OWN. She bought (or leased) the car TOTALLY ON HER OWN. She takes care of everything. She is not only the breadwinner, but the housekeeper. He does next to nothing. He's a starving musician or a "temporary service" job hopper or some other type of job hopper who contributes little to nothing to the household. THAT'S A MOOCHER! She is so desperate to keep some kind of piece of man that she is willing to carry him indefinitely. It is not love, but desperation.
On the other hand, I know several women who's husbands have high salaries or wages, and the buzzard purchases expensive toys for himself, yet neglects his wife and children. I know of too many examples. In one example, the wife and sons are not allowed to ride in his brand new $40,000 truck. He is constantly away from home, and the son "hates" him for being so selfish and neglectful. They are only allowed to ride in the modest car that the wife bought with her own money. She has to spend her modest income on taking care of the children's needs, because he only does for self. In another example, this one rascal makes something like $90k, yet has himself and his wife living in a shack in a trife neighborhood. He gambles the money away and squanders it on multiple motor vehicles he likes to show off, including motorcycles and Cadillacs. She drives an old model Ford Tempo that she undoubtedly got herself on her menial wages. That particular husband also stays gone for days at a time. One of their two sons moved to Atlanta and has nothing to do with the father. The other son is a moocher living off a woman ten years his senior to whom he is not married.
So the difference is that when the woman is the breadwinner, she usually allows the man to freely mooch off her, yet when the man is the breadwinner, the wife simply has to live within her own separate means while the husband lives more or less comfortably. This seems to be the case in the black community, at any rate.
Furthermore, a MAN, who is at a socioeconomic advantage in this society, should be able to be a man and take care of his family, rather than expect the woman to get out there and work twice as hard to make what he could make alone.
we do have women that makes just as much and i've seen many
keep their royality to them self and wait on da man's pay check
so that makes her as well a moocher!!!!!
yeap!! dat's it .
in a household i strongly believe that both should come even
and as one to a bond and it don't matter who makes the most
see keepin thangz even so if the relationship happen to fall
their will be no fight over who get what so yeah! i'll sign
my name becoz i know how women work when it come to
MONEY ! and royalties that's why in many break ups so many
get caught up in the mix of what's mines or yours thing !!!
Call me old-fashioned...
...but I feel it behooves the MAN in the union to do AT LEAST as well as the woman, or close enough, and to provide for his wife and children. A man should not look to a woman to provide for him financially (perhaps in other ways, but not financially).
I got into such a heated debate with a former friend about this issue, that he cut ties with me. My argument was that a man should not even be on the hunt for a wife if he is not ready, willing and able to provide for her and any children they may conceive together. If he is financially broken down, he should not be barking up the tree of a woman who is financially stable and handling her business. BY THE SAME TOKEN, I told him that I would not expect to become the wife of some big time entrepreneur who has made significantly greater accomplishments, and who is a significantly higher achiever than I. I think people should stick with their own kind. Let the ghetto fabulous stick with the ghetto fabulous, let the bourgeois stick with the bourgeoise, and let the moderates stick with the moderates, etc.
Actually, I didn't realize Jennifer Lopez has been married and divorced since becoming famous. Should have found love with someone of comparable means. DAYUM MOOCHERS!!!
Separate names with a comma.