Bend Over Kobe Bryant!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

this used to be the pi regional mod.

Greek Letters? Oh, you mean RP! Was he more like Sammy Hagar, or David Lee Roth?

[Dan & Jenni 457]

And why does it need to be half? Would Vanessa be less wealthy with 25% or 30%?

How many bruised knees dids she suffer?

How many sprained ankles didi she suffer?

How many arthritic index fingers does she have?

How many basketballs did she dribble?

how many children did he give birth to??

[Leatherneck 693]

how many children did he give birth to??

Ok, I'll bite and provide a rhetorical answer to your rhetorical question-none.

However, her ability to pop out two kids didn't add one dollar to the families wealth.

[SMR 368]

Celebrity divorce articles have always puzzled me a bit when they talk about how much the rich(er) spouse is going to lose. In the end, the rich spouse still ends up with tens or hundreds of millions. Sure, it makes a difference. But it's not like the person is getting financially broken and forced into bankruptcy. The articles act as if someone is getting raked over the coals to hand over his or her last farthing.

On the subject of contributions, I think there is a significant inconsistency in the way divorces are currently treated, particularly when one spouse is the breadwinner (this about divorces in general, not just the rich and/or famous). When it comes to splitting up the assets and determining who will be paying whom how much alimony/child support, it always comes up about how much the non-bread winning spouse contributes: taking care of the house, raising kids, providing emotional support, etc. None of this can be denied, but it stands to reason that after the divorce, these contributions are no longer going to be coming from the non-bread winning spouse, with the possible exception of child rearing depending on the divorce outcome. Yet when we talk about how much the bread winning spouse is supposed to contribute to the non-bread winning spouse, suddenly many expect that contribution to not change. In short, the less measurable (but not less important) contributions of the non-bread winning spouse are assumed for the purpose of determining that the non-bread winner is entitled to assets and support but the loss of these contributions to the well-being of the bread winning spouse are never considered when determining the fairest setup going forward.

[Dan & Jenni 457]

Ok, I'll bite and provide a rhetorical answer to your rhetorical question-none.

However, her ability to pop out two kids didn't add one dollar to the families wealth.

in the event of a prenup or a divorce, things like that have to be taken in to consideration i think. im not totally against prenups but they are just not for me.... but then again i dont have anything to lose lol. if both sides are happy and the prenup is fair and takes in to consideration what is actually put in to the marriage (and in the case of immigrating spouses and fiances the fact that they have given up everything they know including possibly a job to be with you and might not have much to go back to)... and not just who earned what... then i think they are ok to do. what puts me off them and makes me question all those that use them is when people (im not naming names here but it was a thread not so long back on the subject) say thing like "if the marriage doesnt work out then i can send her back with what she had"... it just sounds so cold and heartless so you begin to wonder if all people who want a prenup are like that.

[Leatherneck 693]

in the event of a prenup or a divorce, things like that have to be taken in to consideration i think. im not totally against prenups but they are just not for me.... but then again i dont have anything to lose lol. if both sides are happy and the prenup is fair and takes in to consideration what is actually put in to the marriage (and in the case of immigrating spouses and fiances the fact that they have given up everything they know including possibly a job to be with you and might not have much to go back to)... and not just who earned what... then i think they are ok to do. what puts me off them and makes me question all those that use them is when people (im not naming names here but it was a thread not so long back on the subject) say thing like "if the marriage doesnt work out then i can send her back with what she had"... it just sounds so cold and heartless so you begin to wonder if all people who want a prenup are like that.

Granted, that is a rather cold and cruel statement.

Well, I have to assume that you're a female, because you seem to be stuck on how females fair with regards to prenups.

You have to remember that wienie politicians in various state capitols and judges sitting in divorce/family courts gave birth

to the very need for a prenup. Men got tired of feeling like they had a broom handle loaded with splinters plunged up their

rectums without the use of vaseline.

You wanna see "...cold and heartless" take a half day and sit in any family court and see how men get raped and robbed

legally with regards to excessive child support and spousal support. And that does not include the division of any assets.