So Much For 50/50

Learn from those dumb enough to get married. Even when the woman cheats she gets more. So what's in it for men to get married again? lol


http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/yahoo-tv/hulk-hogan-divorce-details-public-210908388.html

 

Nonsense, it's less about who cheats or doesn't, that's archaic. Most states have no fault divorce, and it's less important, if at all. It's really about who has the earning power and assets and elected not to protect themselves through ante-nuptial agreements.

Consider Roseanne Barr, she paid Tom Arnold $50 MILLION dollars after a four year marriage. Now, she's going to pay the second husband a lot of money after a seven year marriage, because she had no pre-nuptial agreement going into that marriage.

So, the question, while perhaps jaded, more properly would be, what's in it for anyone? Also, I would say, learn from anyone, woman or man, who had significantly more earning power and assets than your partner, and elected not to procure an ante-nuptial agreement.

 

Tom Arnold got 50? Are you sure about that?
What I find most interesting is that cheating who're got more of the money he earned than he did. Shit like that simply amazes me

 

Yep, I'm sure, lol. Cheating is no longer the issue. Men cheat and get paid too, lol. It does seem unfair when you look at the numbers, but like in all matters legal, it depends on the legal representation at your disposal. If you want to see the effect of legal representation, you should do a search of Michael Strahan, the former NFL player turned Commentator and celebrity spokesperson. His settlement was awful. His wife got $10 million and $18,000/mo in child support, and she had a master's degree. He challenged the settlement and on appeal at the state level it was reviewed and reduced in light of her potential earning power, that she shouldn't be able to sit at home and profit from it, if she's able to work, and the child support being too high. The court cited what's known under N.J. law as the "Three Pony Rule", meaning that a child should be well provided for, but doesn't need three ponies.


As you'll see Madonna paid Guy Richie, who's a successful director in his own right, between $70 and $90 million.

Jennifer Lopez paid Chris Judd $14 million after an 8 month marriage.

Janet Jackson paid her ex $10 million.

Kevin Federline got $19 million from Britney Spears.

 

Same w Jessica Simpson when she divorced.. hmm.. lost his name.

I sorta laughed at that one because at the time they got married, he had more earning potential the her so the non-prenup at the time was in her advantage - at the time of the divorce she earned much much more than him and she had to pay him at the divorce - dont now the number.

But I do agree that the reason for divorce such as an affair should be counted for

 

Nick could have asked for money from her, but he chose not to seek any financial settlement from her.

Good or bad, the intent of no-fault divorce was to make it easier for women to get out of marriages. As we have discussed recently, in this time of "me first", the only important aspect of divorce seems to be the division of marital property. In making it so easy to divorce, and yes I know the reasons, abuse, infidelity, etc, but it gives people too easy of a way out, because often, not always, the parties aren't willing to work on the marriage. I know that you can't force people to love you or stay with you, but perhaps, with cooling off periods, required mediation and more, people might find ways to reconnect. Sadly, we're a throw-away society, and when children are involved, they suffer in the process, whether parents admit or acknowledge it.

 

I remember now, if I recall correctly - her father pressed the non-prenup so it was still funny as it could have gone the other way if he chose to pursue it.

and I completely agree on what you wrote - having that said, I would have a prenup in place

 

I wouldn't do it any other way. Just as stated in an old American Express Card commercial, "Don't leave home without it"...

 

Why get married then? If I gotta be cautious of you then why do it.

 

I read he would have gotten half and her dad offered him a few million to walk away but Nick settled for less than half but more than a few million.

 

Hey there Mr half glass full

Its a precaution.. hope for the best, prepare for the worst is my motto in anything I do. Its right in-between cynic and naive - realistic.

You don't have to be dumb just because you believe in love and marriage.

I for one, believe in marriage - but that does not mean I necessarily believe in death do us part in every instance - things may change, people change.
Not all divorces are bad ones either, sometimes people do grow apart..
I do believe that people in general give up too early (based on what Swirl and I have mentioned), but at some point there may be no reason to stay together. Its not either or, black or white, there is a whole sliding scale.

 

That's like asking, why buy insurance. You hope that the tornado doesn't hit your house, but you want to know that if it does, you won't be homeless and naked. I think that you have to be aware, more than cautious. Things happen that are unforeseen. I know my level of commitment and loyalty and I hope for the same in the person I choose to marry. It's not something that I'd hope to ever need, and most contain a "sunset" clause", meaning that they come to an end after a period of time. So, it's not a matter of not loving or trusting. That's my perspective anyway...

 

None of my other relationships require that and that's why I get annoyed thinking about it.

 

Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey
Reported settlement: $0
Year: 2005
When the two Newlyweds filed for divorce, critics speculated that the one-time boy band member would seek spousal support from Simpson, who was worth more than $35 million at the time. Despite his much smaller net worth, he openly refused to request a payout, even turning down a $1.5 million settlement offer from Simpson's dad.


Read more: Celebrity Divorce Settlements - Most Expensive Celebrity Divorces - Marie Claire

 

Well, all I can say is wait until you've acquired a few assets and you might think differently. As I recall, you want to have children as well. So, you may be able to find someone to live with who doesn't require a marriage as a prerequisite to children. But, even then, you've got to think about the potential for palimony my friend. So, your relationships may not require it now, because of your status, but if you're fortunate you may be surprised how much can be extracted from you, lol, even if you aren't married.

 

If you ever accumulate a significant net worth down the road Dark Knight, I think you would buy into more the concept of a pre-nup agreement.

I think people should have one in most cases even if they aren't affluent, but I'm at the point now it's a necessary evil of getting married.

Like having to invite your in laws!!:smt043

 

True just sad that people need laws to be human.

 

For the first, and likely last, time, I'll agree with Motherboy. I would never sign a prenup. There's something about preparing for the end of a marriage before it even begins that would make me think "why bother?"

[YOUTUBE]n6AFuOStXGQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

Would calling some members "sad dried up old bitches who love to spread their misery anywhere possible" be considered an insult? Just wondering.

 

My personal motto: there's only one way to find out.