What about a woman who gets cheated on or where the hubby files for divorce?
What about her? They each get what they agreed to in the prenup. Unlike you, I donât tell other people how to live. The only thing Iâd force on people is a prenup for every marriage. Thatâs it. Other than that, let people decide for themselves.
Now if society really wanted to totally redefine marriage, Iâd be totally open to talking. But under the current system where some woman can go slut around with a dozen guys, say she needs to go find herself, and nobody lifts an eyebrow, there is no way in hell Iâd ever agree to your system.
Hey you misogynist pig. While you are busy framing women unfaithful whores, your wife may be taking notes on what you expect of her. Perhaps you have a friend here she could slut around with in the current system.
In the current system, this woman is a slut simply because she wonât shut her stupid mouth.
Michele, I am not saying all women are unfaithful sluts. SOME women are unfaithful sluts. SOME men are unfaithful man-sluts. Any marriage system needs to acknowledge that reality and deal with those situations.
You mean with a prenup?
A prenup is not part of the system. A prenup is a contract drawn up to deal with the system. Our current system is:
-
Cheating is not considered as a factor in asset division in divorce. It is only considered in custody arrangements, and even then it favours the woman if she cheated.
-
People may divorce for any reason at any time. âNo fault.â
-
Breach of contract is not something taken into consideration in marriage. You promise until death do us part, then divorce six months later, and thereâs no penalty.
-
Motive is not considered in the current system. Marry a guy while planning to divorce in 10 years because heâs on an upward income trajectory and thatâs 100% fine in the eyes of the law.
Thatâs the current system. Prenups and other contracts are simply ways to deal with that system, the same way non-disclosure agreements are ways to deal with employment law.
Serious? You actually discussed this with your wife while dating?
And this? I just have to askâŠdid you discuss marital statistics also?
Try harder when reading, Michele. I am describing the current legal system as it pertains to divorce.
I understand that, Reg. Youâre the one who puts âthe systemâ high on your list for guidance.
Men should all sign over half of everything in advance. Future earnings, too. lol.
You are such a boy, not a man, Reggie. Of course there are women who arenât worth a damn, but so are men. But to pick only the negagive examples of onlybone gender, to justify a general rule, is plain unfair. Itâs also not useful to pick the rarest case for formulating a general rule, but the average case. And this is what I am talking about.
As long as no one has to step back in their job/careers, there is no reason to share the income. But as soon as one person has to reduce or give up the job alltogether, to take care of him/children, itâs just fair if that person (in most cases itâs the woman), gets compensated adequately for this income loss, which effects even the pension. That person also shouldnât become a beggar suddenly to the partner who still works full time, only because she is taking care of the family. Yes or no?
In a healthy marriage/partnership, both decide equally and together about what to buy. There exists not a single justification, that only one (regardless which gender) is in control. Period.
If you or anyone else doesnât want to treat their partner as an equal, then all right is lost to bitch about the other gender or blame low demography on women who donât want to give up their career for a man who refuses to take responsibility.
Go do that, Gunda. Iâm not stopping you. Just donât tell me how to live. One of us is happily married. The other shouldnât be giving out marriage advice.
So is Trump, Putin and so are the Talibans of this world. As if marriage in itself is any quality proof or proof of responsibility. And just because I am not married, doesnât say I havenât had any possibilities. I am just not desperate.
My point is, if you donât want to view your partner as an equal and share the responsibility and risk, you have no moral right to criticize people who do and who want others not to be exploited. You have way more in common with Trump than you want to admit. You just donât have his possibilities.
I donât criticize anyone, Gunda. I think everyone should live and marry the way they wish. Not the way I wish, not the way you wish, the way they wish. If that means marrying under your amusingly simplistic set of rules, great, let them. If not, well I think thatâs fine, too.
Marriage isnât proof of responsibility. Marriage is proof of marriage. Those who have married, who experience marriage, and especially those who are happily married, comment from a position of first-hand knowledge about marriage. Those who havenât comment from a position of ignorance.
Whether youâve had your chances or not, you have not married, Gunda. You should, imo. As someone who has lived many years single, many more years in relationships, and now many years married, I highly recommend marriage (and I recommend this from a position of first-hand knowledge).
My marriage has not lacked its trials and troubles. We almost split up at one point many years ago. Neither of us have been perfect partners. The last decade has been the best of my life, though, and today in 2026, we are stronger than ever. I think itâs almost certain we will be together until death.
Life is way better when youâre not doing it alone.
Simplistic? You donât criticize, lol? I view yours the simplistic one. Simplistic ala Trump. The one who has the most money has the most power and the only say. While the other one is made and kept dependent. In the worst case, the society pays, if the partnership fails. Thatâs why I oppose such a truly simplistic concept.
Reggie, a marriage to me is about two people sharing their life together. Their life. And that means everything. In good and in bad times.
If both people work fulltime, there is no need for a shared income. I donât mind if they do or not. I donât care, as neither of them can exploit anyone nor the society.
As soon as one of them reduces work or stays at home fulltime for whatever reason, I want that person as well as society to be saved from an exploitative deal.
If the breadwinner doesnât want to share itâs income from that day on the partner stays at home (not the assets built before that, but only from that moment on; also no inheritance) then why should that other person sacrifice their life and take the full financial risk (so does the tax payer) for a partner who refuses to go all in as well?
The rest of your post was utter nonsense.
Gunda, a marriage to you is a guess. A dream. You have no idea what marriage is. Youâve never done it. Youâre like a poor kid giving investment advice, telling millionaires how they should arrange their portfolios without having anything of his own to invest.
You should try to find a man to marry, Gunda. Life is way better when youâre not doing it alone.
You are talking nonsense. Even the Talibans of this world think their marriage is great. I also bet they consider themselves as great dads. Give their women equal say and financial means, and those Talibans would cry like those old Somali sacks, after they heard, they canât marry child brides anymore, lol. Marriage is subjective to everyone and the cultural and legal norms, as well as so much more, influences it. Be a man and not a boy, when it comes to sharing responsibility and respecting your partner as an equal, Reggie. You sound like Trump regarding women and he certainly would agree with you.
If you donât want to go all in in a partnership, you canât expect from your partner to go all in as well. Period. And you canât expect respect for such a marriage from any sane one either. And the society should not have to pay for your or anyones cowardice and egoism, if the marriage fails.
The thing youâre not getting is that you donât get a vote, Gunda. There are only two votes about my marriage. Only two votes about every marriage.
And in my marriage, both people vote that things are good. I donât know how Danâs marriage is going (I assume itâs fine), but I know I donât get a vote. If theyâve arranged things differently from the way weâve arranged things, thatâs fine. Thatâs their business.
Am I free to express my opinion about how Danâs marriage is organized, even though I donât get a vote? Sure, I suppose so, but nobody asked me, and Iâd never do that. Youâre just heckling from the sidelines about a sport you donât play.
You should try to find a guy to marry, Gunda. Life is way better when youâre not doing it alone.
Here you are wrong again, Reggie. I have a vote like every single citizen in any democratic country worth the name, to define the legal frame for marriages as well as the effects for social security systems, from welfare to pension systems.
In a democratic society, no one should face disadvantages only because they get married. Itâs not perfect in any country yet. I give you that. But what the hell is wrong, if the legal frame protects the social security system as well as the one who reduces work or stays even completely at home, to take care of the whole family, with or without children? With no legal right on half of the breadwinners regular income from that day on (again, not included any assets gained before and also without any inheritance before and after that date), that person will not just face significant, existencial financial losses if marriage fails, but is also legally reduced to a beggar to the good will of their partner (in most times thatâs the hubby).
What has this to do with weaving two lives together and go through life together in good and in bad times?