It’s because his arrangement comes off as a business deal. There is no talk of love, care and hope for a relationship. It seems @badabing is bitter. It could be previous relationships too along with what he has seen around him. Not all women stay at home after a baby, in the UK, they have to offer you your previous job as a part time position ( if it can be done), if you so wish. So, it’s not just about the kids that the posters are so offended about it’s just that it’s so chop, chop, business deal, what’s next on the agenda kind of a thing.
I don’t plan on chasing my career - I plan on retiring within 4-5 years and managing my assets myself. Who said I don’t want love - why can’t I have love yet protect myself as much as possible? Those saying I am bitter - nothing could be further from the truth. Have I seen relationships nosedive for one reason or the other: absolutely. Do I understand each situation is unique and context specific - yep! Seeing men burnt in marriages all around me - I promised myself I will protect myself as much as possible: nobody else is going to do it. I don’t see what the big hoopla is? Equal rights for equal responsibilities! If illnesses arise of course I’m prepared to make the necessary adjustments in a relationship - I ain’t an ogre!
I’ve had a naughty past - women from practically every continent except black girls - they’re to loud for my liking. So I have a fair idea as to how a female mind works and what they want from a LTR. I’m just out to protect myself as much as possible. It is what it is!
And like many others have said - a prenup, in itself isn’t a bad thing…so long as it is equitable to both parties and truly recognizes each person’s commitment and contribution to the relationship.
For example, if a guy divorced a woman after 20 years of marriage and 3 kids, just because he wanted to trade her in for a newer, younger model - damn straight I’d tell her to get half of everything he has as well as a generous spousal support (everything he has? Nope. And if she remarries, the spousal support would end). On the other hand, if she leaves him after a year of marriage because she’s just not that into him, I don’t think she’s entitled to anything.
But if you see the difference - its based on the level of commitment each had to the marriage and whether they fulfilled their role as a partner.
The point everyone is making is that you’ve accounted for everything except for love and love changes you - whether it be love for a partner or love for a child. What you think you would do or expect today, might change drastically later.
I don’t think you’re bitter. What I understand of you, and that’s of course purely based on what you’ve said so far in this thread so don’t kill me, is that while you may have had several affairs with different women, you have yet to fall in love with one. And that’s why when you talk about marriage/kids - there is a clear lack of understanding about the love, sacrifices and compromises a family is build upon in your posts, however I firmly believe each to his own, so if that’s how you see it, good for you
You can do whatever you like badabing. It’s your life. If you change after having a family and kids, who knows, many the lady has read " Lean In" and wants to have a full career and she won’t change. There are lots of women like this around. Key is that both are on the same page.
UK law doesn’t put much value on prenups. Plus even if he does Nikah and does not register it in the UK (as he said earlier in the thread) longterm co-habitation and children would give the same rights to the wife.
So prenup debate here is just a distraction unless op is willing to cut all ties to the UK and future wife also has no ties (now or in the future) to the UK.
What I am surprised is that none of the ladies here have an issue with just Nikah and no registered marriage in the UK. I would be amazed if the kinda lady he is after was silent on this too.
Well he definitely shouldn’t move to to the U.S. b/c its the same thing here lol. Pre-nups can be throw out by a judge its deemed unfair, signed under duress etc. and many states recognize common-law marriage.
Its pointless to even acknowledge that “idea” b/c the type of woman he wants to marry is not going to agree to this. Not sure about the UK but in the U.S., a legal marriage grants the spouse many legal rights automatically that you wouldn’t otherwise get.
In the US good prenups offer reasonable protection in most cases. Case law offers plenty of detail on what to do to protect yourself. Someone rich enough to get a prenup will get proper legal advice and be alright in almost all cases (yes there can be exceptions).
In the UK prenups are not looked at the same way at all. If prenups offer you 90% protection in the US, then they offer you 1% protection in the UK.
Its definitely not the same thing.
Also, its not just about “moving to the US” - London is the divorce capital of the world for a reason. UK courts will be happy to take jurisdiction on the remotest of ties he or his wife has (at the time of the marriage and during).
I know, He fell off the tread mill. I don’t agree with the book anyway. But many women do. I have two friends who moved countries for careers while husbands stayed behind. Another one went right back to work after maternity leave ( which was 4 weeks in her company in Pakistan ) and didn’t want to quit even when her husband wanted her to. Badabing wants those kinda girls. Me? I am having none of that!
If I have my Ontario law right, then after the dissolution of a relationship - be it marriage or common-law, the partners are entitled to claim spousal support.
To claim a right to property that is NOT jointly owned (meaning only in one partner’s name), the couple needs to be married or present an argument to overcome the presumption that the property is solely owned by the titleholder.
And I think a couple is automatically assumed to be a common-law couple after cohabiting for three years (it may be less under Federal law).
Point being, even with a prenup or only a nikkah and no registered marriage, there is no guarantee that the other partner wouldn’t be entitled to the marital assets and support.
Also, I am sure that in Ontario - a nikkah is considered a legally-recognized marriage and can be registered by an authorized Imam.
But what would happen if a woman wanted out? What if said woman was married to an extremely wealthy man? Was Michael Jordan’s ex-wife really providing $140 million dollars worth of emotional support? Was Elin Nordegren? Oprah is damn smart to avoid tying the knot. John Cleese’s ex-wife is actually worth more than him now because of their divorce settlement. All of these men are still doing fine, but for the average Joe who makes the median income, his wife randomly deciding to divorce him basically neuters him financially.
Not saying that marriage should be cut and dry but the idea of spousal support can really be exploited by the party that **wasn’t **working.
That’s why I said it should be conditional on the level of commitment and contribution each made the marriage.
For Elin - um, yeah! Given the really big risk that she may have contracted an STD from Tiger, I say she should have gotten half his money! He betrayed their vows and harmed her in the worst possible way. As for Michael Jordan, from what I’m told, Tiger learned his ways from him. Is it punitive to want half the other person’s assets. Yes. But its also directed related to the other person’s actions. When one partners betrays the sanctity of the marriage vows, because they’re big superstar - then there are consequences.
Interestingly enough, if a guy “fell out of love” with his partner because they just became different people, I’d probably go a lot easier of such a person in terms of alimony expectations and say the property should be split equitably (which isn’t necessary 50-50 for a billionaire) and provide spousal support for a finite period of time (like five years for the person to set up a business/establish a career).
