Prenups

[dagobert2 0]

Considered pre-nup since I have significant assetts acquired outside the marriage. At some point in our discussions it became apparent to both of us that the idea of a pre-nup is simply bad kharma. It may also be good business. We decided against it as marriage is a lot more about kharma than business.

Will you please re-read your own post? (And read it aloud to the group?)

Marriage is a lot more about kharma than business????

Where? In Hollywood, maybe. Everywhere else, including the places where there is an entire industry devoted to "scamming" foreigners with "significant assets acquired" marriage has a lot more to do with business than kharma.

Sure, I'm like everyone else. I hate the idea of having to "protect" yourself and your assets from the person you're signing on to spend eternity with. However, in the real world, if things are going to go sour, and there's over a 50% chance they will, you're going to lose a "significant" chunk of your acquired assets if you don't have a pre-nup.

Slim,

My post reads precisely the way I meant it - no inaccuracies at all. Marriage is a lot more about kharma than business. It is divorce that is often more about business than kharma. Therein the paradox and the reason this thread sparks such interest and diversity of opinion. Further, if you enter into an arrangement which by definition is a lifetime commitment by hedging that commitment with a safe out then you are introducing bad kharma into the arrangement. Perhaps it is the word "kharma" which is causing the controversy - substitute positive attitude, vibe, faith, or whatever analogous term you are most comfortable with to make the comparison. Either way, I am trying to describe the emotional energy which we all need to contribute to foster love, long term commitment, trust and mutual respect in a successful marital relationship. Business on the other hand is all about creating an arrangement whereby your efforts result in a material or monetary outcome in your favor. Clearly, a person's shift to the latter objective can result if the relationship becomes devoid of love, long term commitment, trust and mutual respect.

On the other hand, it sounds like in your post you were descibing the exploitation of the institution of marriage for profit rather than marriage itself. If that is the case and a person suspects that they may indeed fall victim to that exploitation then a pre-nup would offer some business protection. I am interpreting your reference to "Hollywood" as meaning that you believe that purely amorous marital arrangements are a rarity in "the real world". Perhaps there is a narrower definition of "the real world" in this forum or in your opinion as a result of the demographic. I have never dealt with a marriage broker (I assume that is the industry you are referring to) nor entered into a serious relationship on the basis of a business arrangement. And I must admit my ignorance of the percentage of visa journeys involved in the various categories of relationship beginnings. I also do not intend to cast dispersion towards those on the forum who have used a marriage broker to find a mate nor do I infer that that they are blindly entering into marriages devoid of mutual love. I simply don't know much about it. However, I would put to you that there are indeed many relationships in the real world which are predicated on love, long term commitment, trust and mutual respect and are not in any way a distortion or exploitation of the institution of marriage.

As for the alarming divorce rates I share your concerns. However, I happen to believe that one of the root causes is the increasing impermanence with which marriage is viewed. In other words I believe it is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. When we begin a lifelong commitment with visions of it failing you increase the probability of it failing. A person makes many many choices in a marriage which contribute or detract from the level of commitment and spirit of cooperation. Harboring a vision of failure weakens the couple's resolve to keep working at it. Even if that effect is slight its presence will ultimately increase the probability of divorce.

Lastly, I sense that you are drawing a contrast between those with "nothing to lose" and those with "significant assets". As you have placed yourself in the former group and I in the latter, allow me to comment on the latter. There is a trap for a single person with significant assets to fall into and they assume that people are interested in their assets and not themself. They perceive themselves as highly susceptible to exploitation. This perception taints their relationships. It can actually increase their chances of falling victim to exploitation. It can even prevent them from entering into serious relationships at all. Their wealth becomes a curse rather than a blessing. In other words, if one isn't careful, wealth breeds an unhealthy paranoia. I am not saying that everyone who choses a pre-nup has an unhealthy paranoia. What I am saying is that it can be the case. In those cases, the person is actually protecting themself from themself and quite possibly victimizing their spouse in the process.

Best of luck,

Chris

[Satellite 1]

My fours years including not only those "vacations" but also living with her in Russian Federation for an entire year as a normal family. We both had jobs, paid bills, spoke the same language, and lived entirely as man and wife in our own flat and SHARED ALL. I did what very few are willing to do. If you can live together in her country with her customs and culture, America should only be easier. As I said, I know my fiancée far better than most do prior to her U.S. entry.

That's awesome! I wish more folks would do that.

You don't enter into something as serious as marriage already planning for the worse...Think POSITIVE not negative. I don't believe in already dooming the marriage or my life with "what ifs." Plan for your life TOGETHER not for your possible breakup!

This just turns full circle. Let me you ask you this then: Do you have health insurance, life insurance, home owner's insurance, more than state minimum on car insurance? If you do have any of those things, why are you thinking NEGATIVELY about health, life, your property and driving? Aren't these things just as SERIOUS as marriage?

[Satellite 1]

Further, if you enter into an arrangement which by definition is a lifetime commitment by hedging that commitment with a safe out then you are introducing bad kharma into the arrangement. Perhaps it is the word "kharma" which is causing the controversy - substitute positive attitude, vibe, faith, or whatever analogous term you are most comfortable with to make the comparison.

I'll pose the same question I posed to Kazan' Tiger. Isn't insurance similar to a prenup? And if you have health, life, property, and car insurance, aren't you introducing bad kharma into those things too? I surely hope my life and health is a lifetime commitment just as marriage. But I'd be a fool to not have insurance. Am I setting myself up to die or to get ill?

I have never dealt with a marriage broker.

Actually you have. Meet our very own Kazan' Tiger. Check out his services and catalog:

http://www.clubworldrelations.com/

There is a trap for a single person with significant assets to fall into and they assume that people are interested in their assets and not themself. They perceive themselves as highly susceptible to exploitation. This perception taints their relationships. It can actually increase their chances of falling victim to exploitation. It can even prevent them from entering into serious relationships at all. Their wealth becomes a curse rather than a blessing. In other words, if one isn't careful, wealth breeds an unhealthy paranoia.

I like your reasoning, but do you think the "have nots " avoid divorce more than then the "haves"? As far as I understand the divorce rate is pretty standard across all groups in America. Edited September 20, 2007 by Satellite

[dagobert2 0]

"I'll pose the same question I posed to Kazan' Tiger. Isn't insurance similar to a prenup? And if you have health, life, property, and car insurance, aren't you introducing bad kharma into those things too? I surely hope my life and health is a lifetime commitment just as marriage. But I'd be a fool to not have insurance. Am I setting myself up to die or to get ill?"

For me, the analogy is faulty. Purchasing insurance is a business transaction exchanging money for risk transfer services with an effective and expiration date (certain types of life insurance notwithstanding). Fact is, with life and health, these things are destined to meet with the perils for which we insure them. In that case we insure them because we know we will suffer the loss as defined in the terms. It is a certainty. I am of the opinion that bad kharma only enters a business transaction when ethics or the principles of fairness are abandoned. I chose not to view marriage as a business transaction to be insured or as a risk to be transferred.

"I have never dealt with a marriage broker.Actually you have. Meet our very own Kazan' Tiger. Check out his services and catalog:

http://www.clubworldrelations.com/"

??? I have never conducted business with Kazan Tiger.

"There is a trap for a single person with significant assets to fall into and they assume that people are interested in their assets and not themself. They perceive themselves as highly susceptible to exploitation. This perception taints their relationships. It can actually increase their chances of falling victim to exploitation. It can even prevent them from entering into serious relationships at all. Their wealth becomes a curse rather than a blessing. In other words, if one isn't careful, wealth breeds an unhealthy paranoia.I like your reasoning, but do you think the "have nots " avoid divorce more than then the "haves"? As far as I understand the divorce rate is pretty standard across all groups in America."

My point was not to draw a contrast between the haves and have nots. I was trying to illustrate the risks associated with wealth and, in particular, one's perception of their own wealth as it relates to intimate relationships. And ultimately, I was trying to illustrate how in some circumstances the other signer of a pre-nup can ironically end up the victim of a marriage destined to fail due to insecurities on the part of their spouse who initially sought financial protection. You are probably correct in your conclusions about divorce rate and income groups.

(Sorry I don't know how to break these quotes up manully so I am using " " instead)

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Insurance is far different. These things cover life, property or health to protect BOTH of you together. A prenuptial agreement is about greed and separation.

[Turboguy 6]

The only relationship I can analize in depth is my own. We both want a prenup and I think we both have a total belief that we are in a wonderful relationship that will survive and bring happiness to us both. Neither of us look at our relatonship as exploiting the other. I am not exploiting her for love or sex and she is not exploiting me for money. At the time she fell in love with me she knew the following. That I live in a house that I bought for $ 3900.00. That I drive a 4 year old pick up truck. That my income is average or so and that I have no bills and can live comfortably on my income and do the things I want to do without worrying. I said something to the effect that we might buy a new or newer house next year and she said she does not want to. That she wants to stay in the old one. She watches my money like a hawk and rarely asks for anything and never anything expensive. Most of the time when we have shopped if she wanted something is was an $ 8.00 top or the like. When we buy groceries she will spend 5 minutes on each thing like a pound of butter making sure she gets the best value. We spent the summer together in the Caribbean and we ate out 3 times, once in a food court in a mall, once in a burger joint and once in a nice restaurant.

Part of my reason for wanting one is my kids and my employees are much more comforatble with the thought of me having a prenup. I won't repeat what I said before but she has fears and feels more comfortable with one. Perhaps her past relationships make her feel that way. Another part of my wanting one is seeing a Ukrainian gal I know and what happened in her divorce. The lawyers got rich and she and her husband ended up financially ruined. I watched my daughter go through a bad divorce that made the lawyers rich and left her with years of worry and problems. I believe our relationship is the best I have ever had in my life but I do like the idea of knowing my business is protected and she can come to America without any worries if it does not go as we both hope and belive it will and that I will know that my business will stay intact. I feel more comfort with the prenup than I do with the insurances that I spend $ 60,000 a year for.

[Kotenochek 0]

My fours years including not only those "vacations" but also living with her in Russian Federation for an entire year as a normal family. We both had jobs, paid bills, spoke the same language, and lived entirely as man and wife in our own flat and SHARED ALL. I did what very few are willing to do. If you can live together in her country with her customs and culture, America should only be easier. As I said, I know my fiancée far better than most do prior to her U.S. entry.

thats great!good luck to you:)

[Kotenochek 0]

. I feel more comfort with the prenup than I do with the insurances that I spend $ 60,000 a year for.

what are you talking about?sorry i am confused?you spend 60 000usd for the insurances a year?

[Thomas-n-Elena 0]

You forget about dirty socks on the floor next to the hamper

Im not allowed to wear socks anymore

and dishes and the smells wafting through the bathroom.

Cant use dishes or the bathroom

If you have love, real love, you can work it out and work together to overcome no matter what it is. However, if you're both in it to simply "see what happens" then you better hope you've done a pre-nup.

We do and we are very happy about it

[Thomas-n-Elena 0]

The true problem with the need for prenups is the obsession with stuff. I dont care if I had millions of dollars and the coolest stuff in the world. The adage he who dies with the most stuff wins is not true, he who dies with the most stuff still dies. My life is not about acquiring things and money. If I can provide for my wife and son and make sure they are happy it doesnt matter what we have or dont have. I would never sign a prenup because anything I would lose in the divorce I can replace its just stuff. You cant take it with you believe me when my father died Im sure my mother wanted to jam all the ####### he saved (newspapers, old paint, pieces of wood) in the garage into his casket so she wouldnt have to throw it out. People things have no meaning, its the memories associated with those things that carry meaning and correct me if Im wrong here but you dont have lose half your mind in a divorce, no court, no lawyer, nobody can take away your memories they are yours, hold on to them and cherish them because you can take those with you wherever you go.

[Turboguy 6]

. I feel more comfort with the prenup than I do with the insurances that I spend $ 60,000 a year for.

what are you talking about?sorry i am confused?you spend 60 000usd for the insurances a year?

I am sorry if I confused you. Yes, Without looking at the records, about that, probalby a little more. I own a business so insurance is not cheap. some of that covers other people than myself such as the hospitilizaton insurence for my employees. Proably if I really added it all it would be more than what I quoted.

[Turboguy 6]

The true problem with the need for prenups is the obsession with stuff. I dont care if I had millions of dollars and the coolest stuff in the world. I would never sign a prenup because anything I would lose in the divorce I can replace its just stuff.

I am sure there are people who are obessed with "stuff" I am sure there are cases where someone does a prenup because they are afraid of losing their stuff, but I am also sure that it has no bearing on my reasons for a prenup. Bear in mind that without a prenup the one who gets the stuff will likely be the divorce attorneys. Your best friend you married will likely turn into your worst enemy by the time the divorce is final. There is an old saying that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Having seen a few Russian women in action I have a feeling that a divorce with a Russian woman is an experince you will never want to go through so I think if is great we have all made wonderful choices in our women and will never have to use a prenup or a divorce attorney.

[1HappyGuy 45]

A prenup or not is a personal decision that depends on the circumstances of each individual involved. I have a friend that married a Ukrainian woman and he had a prenup. In his case, she just wouldn't let the prenup thing alone and began to drive him crazy about the whole thing. Eventually he divorced, paid a large settlement and sent her back home. So, it always depends on the individuals involved. If you have a loving marriage, having a prenup will never mean anything. Prenups are for situations that go bad, not for good loving marriages.

In community property states, assets owned before marriage are considered separate assets. The problem many have is the co-mingling of separate and community assets. If you want to avoid a prenup in a community property state you need to keep your separate assets apart from the community ones. There is always the problem of using community assets to pay liabilities or improvements on separate assets, but in that case the appreciation during the marriage is the only community asset. Gifts or inheritance are always considered separate assets.

Having a prenup agreement does not mean you think the marriage will not last, but is only a prudent decision based upon statistics and experience. It depends on the individuals involved. If your intended can not understand your need for a prenuptial agreement based upon your experience, family heritage, assets and laws of your state, then you either didn't explain it well or he/she didn't understand it. Don't force the issue, but discuss it fully giving both pro's and con's.

[Fandango 1,439]

I think prenups are obviously a v personal matter and vary from person to person....but even if you do have a prenup, you should allow a certain $$$ for your ex to be able to reclaim the life (s)he gave up to immigrate.

To come here, there are many ppl who sell their homes, quit very good jobs, etc...let alone moving away from family...so to be all 'let's protect the money' seems unfair to me. A little financial consideration for the spouse should not be overlooked.

Good luck!

Edited September 24, 2007 by LisaD

[slim 1,525]

Chris, nice post. I whole-heartedly agree marriage should be more "kharma" than business. But, if you're a person with significant assets acquired, you may see your kharma marriage turn into a business divorce. Strictly going by the numbers, there's a higher probability that you will divorce than stay together. If I were a business man, I would probably be protecting my assets from the perspective of inevitable loss, kind of like insurance. The fact is, marriage and divorce are buiness arrangements now. They have kharama associated with them, but they're just as much about business as a partnership contract, etc.

Kazan Tiger and his associated website are nothing like some of the "brokerage" sites out there. Sure, he may be trying to connect "poor Russian women" with "rich American husbands" (which is where the brokerage thing comes from) but it's obvious his site isn't a "business" site to the degree that it's being made out to be here. If you guys think otherwise, I'd suggest actually clicking on the link in his posts. I'm going to make an assumption here, but it's also obvious that if you can "afford" to live as man and wife in Russia for a year, you probably don't have too much to lose in a divorce, therefore making the "pre-nups aren't necessary and marriage for love is the only way to go" argument a lot easier. I'm not calling you out on this, I'm just saying, it's a lot easier to argue marriage for love when you have nothing (or not that much, monetarily) to lose.

I'm with you on that, I have nothing to lose either, the only difference in my argument is I'm saying no pre-nup is necessary when you have nothing to lose but if there's something to lose, that "marriage for love" argument should go right out the window because of the business ramifications of divorce. Turboguy illustrates this quite nicely. Dagobert2 and KazanTiger show the extremes of the opposite.