Discuss and talk about any general topic.
I've heard some people say don't get married, don't cohabitate, and don't have kids, in order to not get screwed.
I don't want to get screwed.
But I do want kids, and I do want to cohabitate, sort of. What I mean is either cohabitate or have some kind of living arrangement where we're in close proximity to each other and / or live together sometimes, but not all the time. For example, one week at mine, one week apart, one week at hers, one week apart, and so on.
I don't want to get married and I don't ever want to be considered to be common law married.
What I'm most concerned about is having to share assets. What's mine is mine.
So, what are some clever ways to avoid that?
Trusts are too complicated
Cohabitation agreements / anything that declares that we're not married could easily be ignored
The kind of solution that I'm looking for is something that creates a situation where it would be impossible for a court to make me share or give away anything.
Any good suggestions?
Special Offer! FREE 6 Month Membership on ForeignWomen.com! Sign up here.
New! Chinaebuys - Buy & Ship any Product from China to Worldwide! Taobao Shipping Agent.
Here is what Renaldo did.
Well you need to live in a state where common law marriages dont exist...A state like New York for example banished common law marriages in the 1930's...You need to research this further what States do or don't have common law....
My friend who lives in England is cohabiting with his partner and they have 2 children...Common Law does not exist in England or Wales and hasn't since the 1750's....He has no plans on getting married as he is still young.... He says that he will pull the Tina Turner route and Maybe get married when he is approaching 60 yrs old he says... LMAO!
As for me I want children but do not plan on marrying anyone...But i plan on living with the mother of our future children...Men don't need marriage (piece a paper) like women do... IM 100% IN FAVOR OF COHABITATION OVER MARRIAGE IN A NON COMMON LAW LAND!
Well, if history is any indication, there is a pretty good chance that you are going to die. Then you can't use your assets anyway. You might as well have a child to leave them to.
I like having a wife. I like the affection, the physical intimacy. My wife cooks well, cleans, etc. I do some cleaning, too, but I would if I lived alone. And the place is a lot nicer than my own place would be. There are some financial benefits to two people pooling resources and only paying one rent if you marry a woman who works.
Personally, I think it makes more sense to choose a wife in such a way as to minimize your chances of her divorcing you and taking your kids and assets. If you have kids and live nearby, you are in an even more vulnerable situation as far as losing your kids are concerned. A woman willing to live in the situation you describe probably won't be that committed, and you could lose access to the child if she decides to bail on the lousy situation you put her in. What kind of woman with any self-respect would go for what you propose?
Find a woman committed to marriage, committed to staying, committed to making it work, and committed to pleasing her man. They do exist. Money isn't everything. If you live your life to protect your assets, but don't live much of a life, what good is that? Either way, if you end up dead anyway like most people eventually do, what good did your assets do you?
If women need the paper and men don't, do you plan on cohabitating with a man?
If the woman needs the paper, then she needs the paper. If you haven't married and really committed to her, what reason does she have to stick around? There is no real moral reason for her not to bail on you if she gets tired of you, and see if she can get custody of the child.
In the US, there are states where some men have to pay alimony, but the real financial obligation after divorce is often the man getting billed for child support. But you can get that if you are married or not.
I don't see how the don't marry approach reduces the risk for cohabitators. I'd imagine it might increase the risks of the woman leaving, or at least reduce your power if she wants to leave.
The really good partners, IMO, are going to insist on being married before they have sex and babies with you anyway.
If you meet a traditional woman she might want marriage ...to be in the safe side you can have her sign a per-nupital. If you don't go the marriage route and find a woman who doesn't mind that arrangement it sounds to me a liberal type of woman who might be open to that idea and life style.
The trouble is even if you don't marry or co-habitat and make a baby with a woman and let say the relationship doesn't work out. It's possible she still can claim some sort of support because of the child. In any case finding a woman that is happy with that arrangement is tough.. I don't think foreign girls will go for that but sounds to me more of an American girl might be open to that.
THATS NOT TRUE...THERE ARE PLENTY OF GREAT WOMEN THAT ARE NOT IN A RUSH TO GET MARRIED BUT HAVE CHILDREN WITH THEIR PARTNERS AND THEY ARE LOYAL AND COMMITTED...AS IF THEY ARE MARRIED...
Not all women divorce or initiate divorce. Do you think women are more likely to stay in a cohabitating situation or a situation where they live near each other to have sex and be around each other's kids? What happens if a man comes along who is willing to offer her marriage?
In finance calculations, money now up to 18 years from now is worth a lot more than money 18 years out. Btw, do judges put men in jail for not paying alimony.
What about losing your children, child support money, maybe sleep and emotional health for a while?
I don't know how they'd collect stats for unmarried people who break up since there is no legal union. There is no ethical, moral reason to stay together. There's no agreement to. At least if you marry, you have her word on the matter. Couples who cohabitate before marriage are more likely to get a divorce than those who don't. The kind of women you are talking about may be more likely to file divorces against their husbands.
This is a foreign-themed site. Are you thinking of a European woman to shack up with?
Pre-nups make sense if you have grown children to leave your estate to if your wife dies and for other specific cases. But starting a marriage off with a contract just in case you divorce communicates a lack of faith in the commitment.
Prenups are often rejected in court, especially in UK.
About myself, I moved from EU to Japan, Japanese wife and 2 daughters, now already adults, no problems.
I take also care of a Filipina fosterdaughter since over 10 years, now 19, living in Cebu, still studying in university, no problems.
You might also add, no adoption, no sperm donor etc. etc. - the list continues...
This is correct what you say, but this is the legal situation in Western feminist countries only.
In Japan there is no child support, regardless if you are the biological father or not after divorce, but also no visitation rights. There is no alimony. The man, ex-husband and father, is expected to pack and to disappear after divorce.
Co-habitation is not considered as a legal form similar to marriage.
The best option about not to get screwed is to move to a non-Western country.
In Japan you will have a hard time to find a lawyer for divorce in court, except you are very rich (celebrities, politicians etc.) and the marriage was very long, over 15 years at least - divorce is no business in Japan and court fees are expensive and have to be paid in advance. - Usually divorce settlements are out of court and most couples do not own much, they just file in a form on the internet, go the next day to the ward office, sign together for divorce and pack their things and leave... finished.
Nowadays in Japan, all individuals have their own national pension and health insurance, there is no common household insurance existing anymore. - In Japan there are only individual banking accounts, no shared account for a married couple. Most young people now do not own property, just rent.
Last edited by Yohan on Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
NEVER SAID ALL....I SAID MOST! AND BY A WIDE MARGIN!
YES THEY DO....
YES BUT AT LEAST YOU WONT PAY 100% OF YOUR MONTHLY INCOME IN ALIMONY...
SAYS WHO? SOME OUTDATED AND BIASED STATISTICS??
COHABITATION IS VERY POPULAR IN EUROPE...ESPECIALLY IN SCANDINAVIA....
As far as I know, only USA has laws where men can be sentenced to jail for not paying CHILD SUPPORT.
I do not know about a single country worldwide, (except USA, in case with children where alimony and child support are often mixed up) which has a law to sentence a man to jail for not paying ALIMONY.
In Central Europe laws are now changing slowly a little for the first time past WWII in favor to men.
Germany has now a new ALIMONY regulation, which clearly says, alimony is for maximum 3 years, the new law mentions for the first time the requirement of 'financial independence after divorce' within a limited period of time. The German Supreme Court confirmed this recently and alimony will not be granted longer than 3 years, even if the ex-wife takes care of children.
Child support in Central Europe is regulated and easy if you are an employee, as the employer will deduct the percentage from your salary, exactly based on your monthly income.
Child support is now under investigation in Central Europe. The new law considers to link visitation rights with child support. If an ex-wife in future deliberately does not respect visitation rights, child support might be cut 50 %.
Laws are quite different from country to country. It depends where you are living and you have to study which regulations might apply to you and might harm you as ex-husband/father after divorce.
Divorce rate in Western countries is often between 50 to 70 percent, over 2/3 of divorces are initiated by the wife.
Last edited by Yohan on Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Im not entirely against marriage at all....but for gods sake do not get married until you are older....as Tom Leykis says to not marry until your at least 50 years old if thats what you want to do...Or as I say to follow the Tina Turner model and not marry until your 73...
Alot of these people rush into the wedding portion and dont take seriously what the marriage entails...I beleive an older person 50 and over would take it much more seriously than a 25 yr old punk....
Not really - if both partners do have somehow similar assets, it might be OK without prenup - but if one is rich and the other is poor, a marriage without prenup is an invitation for marriage fraud and risky. - It is better before marriage to discuss in detail what is mine and what is yours in case the relationship breaks up.
To agree to a prenup before marriage is better than to quarrel during the divorce procedure in court for sure.
Johnny1975, you're trying to have it both ways, and have your cake and eat it too, while burning the candle at both ends. I'd like to see you pull if off. If you can figure it out, you'll be every man's hero.
Do a google search on BRIFFAULTâ€™S LAW. It provides a very interesting insight into the dynamics of deriving benefits within a male-female relationship. Here's one of the articles on the subject worth reading:
http://www.stickmanweekly.com/ReadersSu ... er5546.htm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests