Length of stay

[diadromous mermaid 36]

I believe all are entitled to their opinions, and I am not attempting to change anyone's but simply present an opposing viewpoint. In the end, each of you will take from it what you wish and discard the rest.

But, to address your points...

Prenups are a charged issue for many--not just a few, as this thread so clearly demonstrates.

In my view, prenups are very clearly misunderstood by many, and quite possibly that is what evokes such an emotional out pouring.

It's not that some people wouldn't be willing to sign one; but timing is, in fact, EVERYTHING!

That statement suggests to me that if given time to consider a prenup, one might alter a choice which has been made. But wouldn't that change in decision be predicated on the very essence that many find so objectionable - on material wealth?

On principle, I wouldn't sign a prenup because I believe it plants a seed of doubt and introduces the possibiity of failure into a marriage before it's even begun. It's like starting a building with a flawed foundation, from my perspective.

Rather than to consider it a seed of doubt, how about looking at it is a splash of reality in a world where upwards of 50% of marriages are doomed to failure, and more often than not, failure is based principally on monetary issues?

Put another way, if a person of significant wealth, who is to marry someone of lesser substance, disregarded the matter of separate property and did not draft a prenup, would you view that as demonstration of more confidence in the marriage, or simply as someone who is hedging his bets on the marriage being successful? The fact is that data proves that 1 in 2 marriages is destined to end, with or without this 'seed of doubt" you claim the prenup brings. Unfortunate, perhaps, but reality nonetheless. I liken that to buying a home with a large mortgage and the bank failing to demand that the obligor insure it. Will the insurance be necessary? Hopefully not, in fact there's a good chance it won't but in the event that the home burns down, the bank and the obligor are protected.

If someone was going to ask me to sign a prenup, I would sure want to know that far in advance of my giving up my comfort zone to move across an ocean for someone. I'd be devastated if someone sprung that on me after I'd moved because it would signify TO ME that my partner's interests and faith were more in wealth than in me.

And alternatively, it could be viewed that such a reaction to a normal and wise practice in given circumstances suggests that financial benefits of some sort, in the event of failure in marriage, could influence your decision to marry in the first place. I see the prenup as removing one ugly from the potential motivation of any party. Money aside, other than that which the state would mandate anyway, it clears any potential 'foggy zones', the potential for any underlying motive is removed and choices are made solely for the reasons stated.

There are OTHER people, who would be willing to sign a prenup--as this man's fiancée ultimately did, incidentally--but who would feel a similar sting in being presented with the request. There's no time to PROCESS what's being asked of them, to adapt to it. And that's, frankly, critical. Again, timing, timing, timing. If this idea had been presented well before she moved to the States, then the fiancée could have made a reasoned decision about what she felt and believed about a prenup request from her partner. She should have been given that opportunity before she uprooted herself and her child.

Well, I don't think that I saw where twister gave her an ultimatum "Sign this now, or else". If his fiancé needed time to process and review it with counsel, she should simply have requested that. Anyone that has been in the process of marrying with a prenup in place, expects that the recipient will wish to review it and make sure it is all in order. The way I read twostar's posts it appeared she was not willing to sign it at all, and not that she had asked for "more time" to consider it. Also the reference to time, I gathered was directed towards the visa and not 'her time to agree'. I could be mistaken, though.

However, once again, if money matters not, I can't see how the timing *could* help her to make an informed decision, or how it should influence a decision. Let's not forget that we are discussing two betrothed to be married. Hopefully, they know enough of each other's living standards, profession, lifestyle to know where each other stands. I would imagine that his fiancé was well aware of his financial position, as he was of hers. You'll also note in one of his posts, that he didn't flip out when it appeared, in the 11th hour, that her assets might be stripped from her by her ex-husband. Yes, he was supportive and willing to assist , but I didn't read any principle interest in doing that was an effort to preserve her assets for his own benefit.

If she doesn't sign, she's a gold-digger because she won't. If she does sign, she's a gold-digger because she did, since it's the only way to stay in the country and have any access to his funds.

I don't follow this thought, nor do I have reason to believe anyone is a gold-digger. The simple answer in my opinion is that if wealth does not motivate the fiancée, the prenup would have little impact on her lifestyle in marriage, or her future, nor even her future wealth (should this prenup be structured to expire, say, after the 7th year of marriage, or such time that it appears the marriage is stable and not for any personal hidden agenda, as many of them are) and even in the event of a divorce it would still not strip her of that which she'd naturally be entitled to, and to that which as a woman married to a man of significant wealth would entitle her either. The truth is that a prenup doesn't have any bearing on a solid, sustaining relationship. I suppose one could opine that anyone that would have an objection to the mere existence of a prenup has little confidence in the success of the marriage, too, otherwise it would be a moot point.

Do you see the ugliness and doubt that has been created by not doing this till she got here, by not giving her any time to evaluate her choices?

Simply, no. If twostar's fiancée, is a person who has not amassed the wealth he has (and I am not talking about a little difference, but in the hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions of dollars) if she is savvy and smart she should have anticipated a prenup. It's logical, natural, wise and especially in subsequent marriages. The OP has not spoken of his background, but let's propose that he too was married before and had biological children from that marriage. A prenup would serve to preserve something for his children that a second wife may not necessarily consider a priority, especially if more children were born of this union. Would twostar's fiancée do that? No, not necessarily, but it's not only possible, but common and especially if a marriage ends on bad terms. If that were to be the case, would twostar have been functioning as a suitable parent to give no forethought to his biological children?. I say, no, he would have done a disservice to his own children.

And whatever her own motivations, her child will now suffer. The instability this will cause and the view it will give her of marriage and relationships between men and women will not be healthy. It will be damaging.

That is the fiancée's responsibility not to allow this planning effort to impact her child. There's no more reason for a child of that age to know the reasons why she and twostar may not ultimately continue to marry, as there would be should the couple find out that they are truly incompatible for other reasons. Guarding the child from any potential impact and subsequent harm is the parent's responsibility in my opinion.

[Caladan 19]

I don't see how she would be a gold digger, given that she signed it. I don't think it would say she was a gold digger if she didn't want to sign it. I think it's perfectly natural to be surprised at a pre-nup that occurs so late in the relationship (usually they're settled), and I think it's even more natural to be worried if there's a language difference, showing up in a brand new country with very quickly changed expectations, and not having her own lawyer to represent her interests.

If someone says, 'Just sign on the dotted line, sweetie, really, my lawyer says I have your best interests in mind, though you have no job and I own a company', I'm checking to make sure I don't get screwed. If someone says that in a language that isn't my first in a country I don't know with laws I don't understand, I'm probably not going to cheerfully say 'Okay!', especially if it's never been brought up before I moved halfway around the world.

It has nothing to do with being romantic about religion or thorns in the flowers in the marriage garden silliness, but what a natural reaction would be to being surprised by a legal document you had no reason to expect was coming.

[Kirsten L 0]

DMermaid...

Interesting thoughts. I'll continue the dialogue for the sake of discussion, this fine Friday evening.

In my view, prenups are very clearly misunderstood by many, and quite possibly that is what evokes such an emotional out pouring.

Well, maybe some people do. I think I understand the concept of a prenup pretty well. I still don't believe they're a good idea--for the reasons I've already stated.

It's not that some people wouldn't be willing to sign one; but timing is, in fact, EVERYTHING!

That statement suggests to me that if given time to consider a prenup, one might alter a choice which has been made. But wouldn't that change in decision be predicated on the very essence that many find so objectionable - on material wealth?

No, not on material wealth...on a perception of lack of trust. This is precisely the difference between your point of view and mine. You want to believe that by "settling" all the legal stuff prior to marriage, it clears the way for trust. I would say exactly the opposite--that by "settling" all the legal stuff, you prepare the way for an end to the relationship, a possibility which, in my mind, provides a commentary on a low level of trust between the two parties from the get go.

On principle, I wouldn't sign a prenup because I believe it plants a seed of doubt and introduces the possibiity of failure into a marriage before it's even begun. It's like starting a building with a flawed foundation, from my perspective.

Rather than to consider it a seed of doubt, how about looking at it is a splash of reality in a world where upwards of 50% of marriages are doomed to failure, and more often than not, failure is based principally on monetary issues?

Well, frankly, I see your argument as a non sequitur. Does the fact that 50% of marriages now end in divorce really justify a prenup? I think you have to define what marriage should be before you can argue that. If you want to argue, as Sir Lancelot quite reasonably does, that marriages do not need to be based on love, then as far as I'm concerned a prenup is a perfectly reasonable course of action. However, if a marriage is defined as something based on love, then I think it is much more debatable that the 50% divorce rate is reasonable or right or something upon which we shouldn't try to improve. If the goal is to ameliorate the divorce rate, then I think preparing for the possibility of divorce before even walking down the aisle is not a dose of reality, it's a wrong turn. Do I believe that every couple that signs a prenup will end up in divorce court? Of course not. Do I believe that prenups contribute to making divorce an easy option when it shouldn't be and, hence, directly or indirectly to the high divorce rate? You bet. I think if more couples took the time to really get to know each other in advance and build solid trust, the need for prenups (and divorce) would be largely obviated by better decision-making in choosing a partner.

Put another way, if a person of significant wealth, who is to marry someone of lesser substance, disregarded the matter of separate property and did not draft a prenup, would you view that as demonstration of more confidence in the marriage, or simply as someone who is hedging his bets on the marriage being successful? The fact is that data proves that 1 in 2 marriages is destined to end, with or without this 'seed of doubt" you claim the prenup brings. Unfortunate, perhaps, but reality nonetheless. I liken that to buying a home with a large mortgage and the bank failing to demand that the obligor insure it. Will the insurance be necessary? Hopefully not, in fact there's a good chance it won't but in the event that the home burns down, the bank and the obligor are protected.

I understand why you would choose such an analogy, but--forgive me--I don't think it works. You're speaking in business terms again, which, if you are adopting the point of view that marriage doesn't have to be based on love is perfectly reasonable. However, if you want to add love into this mix, then I would presume it should in anyone's mind take precedence over consideration of any financial holdings--particularly if trust has properly developed between the partners. If you take the time to get to know someone and build trust from the beginning, the likelihood of a future divorce is going to decrease vastly. Hedging bets? OK, fine. I'll accept that. If I'm going to hedge my bets, I would much rather do so in favor of my marriage than against it. Betting against it is kind of like playing for a sports team and betting against your own success. Not much confidence there, eh? What does this sort of thing communicate within the relationship...? I don't think anything good. It's already a premise of "what if we don't last." I think that to be successful, lasting, and healthy, a marriage has to forged on a basic attitude of "we will find a way, no matter what." Do you see why I would take that position? And why the argument about "reality" doesn't really hold water? Adopting your perspective presumes a certain acceptance or tolerance of "the way things are in the world today." I'm not sure that "the way things are in the world today" necessarily should be accepted. In fact, I think the circumstances you raise should be bettered. As a society, we should be working toward good solutions in how we think about and approach marriage. Am I trying to get everyone to think like me? No. Would I like to see the divorce rate come down? Yup. Do I think that's possible? Yup.

Many people see human monogamy as unrealistic and unnatural. I disagree. I think human beings were acutally meant to be bonded for life. There are indeed steps that permit such lasting and healthy relationships to develop... Unfortunaely most of these steps get skipped along with the trust they build between romantic partners... Again, following them would make it possible to make better choices about a lifetime mate, thereby minimizing the need for both prenups and the option of divorce.

If someone was going to ask me to sign a prenup, I would sure want to know that far in advance of my giving up my comfort zone to move across an ocean for someone. I'd be devastated if someone sprung that on me after I'd moved because it would signify TO ME that my partner's interests and faith were more in wealth than in me.

And alternatively, it could be viewed that such a reaction to a normal and wise practice in given circumstances suggests that financial benefits of some sort, in the event of failure in marriage, could influence your decision to marry in the first place. I see the prenup as removing one ugly from the potential motivation of any party. Money aside, other than that which the state would mandate anyway, it clears any potential 'foggy zones', the potential for any underlying motive is removed and choices are made solely for the reasons stated.

Well, I suppose it could be viewed so by someone who was worried about losing their assets. But look again at the words I've bolded in your quote above...You're already introducing doubt. "In the event of failure." In preparing, you accept the possibility. I believe that the most successful couples don't allow for the possibility of failure. They develop trust, and they plow through whatever comes...together. If you take the time to know your partner in advance, to truly look at their character, materialistic attitude will definitely be evident long before you walk down an aisle. If that's what you see/find, it's perhaps time to look elsewhere--BEFORE you get married. How's that for removing "ugly" as you call it? I'd say it's a pretty sound plan.

As for foggy zones...Legal agreements may (and I say "may" because our courts are full of examples of legal agreements that solved nothing) eliminate legal fog. Legal agreements cannot, however, eliminate relational and spiritual fog. However much money may be the visible issue in a marital conflict, I can guarantee you that it is generally a very good cover for something much more fundamental--quite often a struggle for control and power within the relationship. You're trying to improve an ailment (interrelational conflict) with the wrong tonic, insofar as I can see.

There are OTHER people, who would be willing to sign a prenup--as this man's fiancée ultimately did, incidentally--but who would feel a similar sting in being presented with the request. There's no time to PROCESS what's being asked of them, to adapt to it. And that's, frankly, critical. Again, timing, timing, timing. If this idea had been presented well before she moved to the States, then the fiancée could have made a reasoned decision about what she felt and believed about a prenup request from her partner. She should have been given that opportunity before she uprooted herself and her child.

Well, I don't think that I saw where twister gave her an ultimatum "Sign this now, or else". If his fiancé needed time to process and review it with counsel, she should simply have requested that. Anyone that has been in the process of marrying with a prenup in place, expects that the recipient will wish to review it and make sure it is all in order. The way I read twostar's posts it appeared she was not willing to sign it at all, and not that she had asked for "more time" to consider it. Also the reference to time, I gathered was directed towards the visa and not 'her time to agree'. I could be mistaken, though.

Twostar himself claims that his fiancé did agree to sign, despite her negative reaction. His problem was with her negative reaction. What did he expect, throwing that at her at the last minute? It was entirely out of the blue. The fact that she ultimately acquiesced is interesting. My guess is that she felt she had little choice. She has little or NO power in the relationship right now. She's on foreign soil. She can be deported if her fiancé chooses not to marry her and decides not to do the right thing by her--whatever that is. Once you've left everything, how do you go back, especially knowing that your ex-husband is in the process of stripping you of anything you have left? Any way you slice it, she's in a very vulnerable position. And that would suck for anybody.

I don't know this woman. I don't know this man. I've already said that I have no idea what her motives are. But she's now between a rock and a hard place. I think Twostar had a responsibility to inform her of his intentions to ask for a prenup long ago so that this kind of situation could have been avoided. As others have now mentioned, it would appear that this man has "returned" another fiancée to her country in the past. This should raise an eyebrow, if nothing else, about his idea of marriage, his potential willingness to put people in difficult/impossible situations, and his sense of morals and ethics. Something's not right here. The prenup, in my best estimation, is just the tip of the iceberg here. Just a hunch. I can't back it up. But based on what I've seen, I'm pretty comfortable with my perceptions.

It is my understanding from his posts that Twostar's question about time was indeed in relationship to the visa...which should, again, speak volumes. It is clearly NOT about giving his fiancé time to adapt. He's already thinking in terms of the failure of the relationship and where his responsibility ends. He wants as little responsibility as possible. He's asking only what he is BOUND to do by law...not what he OUGHT to do out of moral responsibility. Not pretty...

However, once again, if money matters not, I can't see how the timing *could* help her to make an informed decision, or how it should influence a decision. Let's not forget that we are discussing two betrothed to be married. Hopefully, they know enough of each other's living standards, profession, lifestyle to know where each other stands. I would imagine that his fiancé was well aware of his financial position, as he was of hers. You'll also note in one of his posts, that he didn't flip out when it appeared, in the 11th hour, that her assets might be stripped from her by her ex-husband. Yes, he was supportive and willing to assist , but I didn't read any principle interest in doing that was an effort to preserve her assets for his own benefit.

Well, again, you're making an assumption that her reaction was about money...or that anyone's would be. There are people like me who would simply see this as an issue of trust...and understand from such a request that we were not trusted. Such a request would also communicate the expectation that the relationship might fail. What woman wants to learn from her future husband that he's already preparing for a day that their impending marriage might fail? It doesn't communicate confidence in the person who's being asked to sign the prenup or in the quality of the relationship to which the two parties both contribute. I think there are lots of reasons ASIDE from money that would cause me or others to be incredibly unhappy, shocked, disappointed, or even devastated by a request for a prenup.

If she doesn't sign, she's a gold-digger because she won't. If she does sign, she's a gold-digger because she did, since it's the only way to stay in the country and have any access to his funds.

I don't follow this thought, nor do I have reason to believe anyone is a gold-digger. The simple answer in my opinion is that if wealth does not motivate the fiancée, the prenup would have little impact on her lifestyle in marriage, or her future, nor even her future wealth (should this prenup be structured to expire, say, after the 7th year of marriage, or such time that it appears the marriage is stable and not for any personal hidden agenda, as many of them are) and even in the event of a divorce it would still not strip her of that which she'd naturally be entitled to, and to that which as a woman married to a man of significant wealth would entitle her either. The truth is that a prenup doesn't have any bearing on a solid, sustaining relationship. I suppose one could opine that anyone that would have an objection to the mere existence of a prenup has little confidence in the success of the marriage, too, otherwise it would be a moot point.

What I'm saying actually does follow if you know something about human psychology. We've all seen this sort of scenario: Someone who is looking to escape a relationship or looking to blame someone else for problems will find justifications no matter what choices his or her partner makes. The partner is placed in a double-bind such that any action taken will be viewed negatively. Hence the "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't" situation with the prenup. Based on Twostar's posts, I would say this is probably no longer about what his fiancée does at all. It's about what HE wishes to perceive. She's acquiesced. She's willing to sign, even if she'd rather not. But she's apparently not even permitted to have her own feelings about the request. He seems to think that if she had anything but complete willingness and acquiescence, her loyalty is in question. He's already mentally packing her bags for her and her daughter both. Ouch! Again, I don't know these two, but frankly, the whole thing has a very unfair feel about it. Sure glad it's not me in the middle of the whole mess.

Do you see the ugliness and doubt that has been created by not doing this till she got here, by not giving her any time to evaluate her choices?

Simply, no. If twostar's fiancée, is a person who has not amassed the wealth he has (and I am not talking about a little difference, but in the hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions of dollars) if she is savvy and smart she should have anticipated a prenup. It's logical, natural, wise and especially in subsequent marriages. The OP has not spoken of his background, but let's propose that he too was married before and had biological children from that marriage. A prenup would serve to preserve something for his children that a second wife may not necessarily consider a priority, especially if more children were born of this union. Would twostar's fiancée do that? No, not necessarily, but it's not only possible, but common and especially if a marriage ends on bad terms. If that were to be the case, would twostar have been functioning as a suitable parent to give no forethought to his biological children?. I say, no, he would have done a disservice to his own children.

Hmmm...Your definitions of logical, natural, and wise are very different than mine.

It would seem to me that providing for others after your death is what a will and testament is for. You can certainly discuss with a future spouse your desire to provide for your own children and talk about how finances would be allotted to any future progeny, etc, then record it in a will without introducing a prenup. A will is a provision for those left behind. A prenup is a provision for failure. There's a huge difference.

As for her being smart and savvy if she expects a prenup, I very respectfully and strenuously disagree. I'm a very smart and savvy woman if I do say so myself...and I would not expect a prenup no matter how wealthy my fiancé. I would never marry for anything but love. I would expect the same of my fiancé (do, in fact). Money doesn't change the equation. Healthy, solid trust=no need for a prenup. And incidentally, how could she expect a prenup when he didn't mention a thing about it until she had her feet on American soil? This is not the sort of thing you bring up at the last minute. At least, it shouldn't be. By failing to mention it until now, he gave her one impression, then seriously altered upon her arrival. In anyone's book that would be a shock. He didn't tip his whole hand until it was too late. He sort of faked her out. Where I come from, that's not terribly honest. What he's done now is poison the well, and pretty effectively at that. For his fiancée, rebuilding trust in him or feeling trusted by him after this sort of unpleasant surprise would be quite difficult, I suspect.

And whatever her own motivations, her child will now suffer. The instability this will cause and the view it will give her of marriage and relationships between men and women will not be healthy. It will be damaging.

That is the fiancée's responsibility not to allow this planning effort to impact her child. There's no more reason for a child of that age to know the reasons why she and twostar may not ultimately continue to marry, as there would be should the couple find out that they are truly incompatible for other reasons. Guarding the child from any potential impact and subsequent harm is the parent's responsibility in my opinion.

Again, respectfully, I think this thought misses the point. Twostar took on certain moral and ethical responsibilities (or at least he should have) in bringing this woman and her child to the United States--including care of the child he petitioned to bring here. No matter how nicely that mother tries to shield or paint things for her child, that child is now likely already experiencing the double sting of rejection and instability. Kids are not stupid. They pick up the truth very quickly, even if it's only subconsciously. The messages that will be sent--that are probably already being sent--are going to be damaging. I don't see any way around that. And Twostar has a good deal of responsibility for that.

[rebeccajo 14]

Here's a curveball.

I know a wealthy man who was burned by two bad divorces. A very nice man by the way, who didn't deserve the financial beating he took, especially from wife #2.

Before he took wife #3 as his bride, she had only one stipulation before she would agree to the marriage.

That they sign a prenup wherein he retained all he had before their marriage should the marriage fail.

Because she knew that she loved him for what he was and not what he could offer her. Because she was a strong woman who knew she could stand on her own without financial assistance from him. And because she wanted him to know that her intentions were honorable.

Not all pre-nups are bad. Or signal mistrust. Sometimes they are just the opposite.

[Cristy 4]

I would have been totally horrified if I had given up my whole world to move to another country and marry my husband....and be surprised with a prenup. That is something that should have been discussed way way way way before the big move.

And the poor child! OMG How heartbreaking!

So now not only is she possibly going to be dumped with a child in a strange country with nothing, but she gets to go back to nothing and start all over. Wow. This is so sad.

[Kirsten L 0]

Here's a curveball.

I know a wealthy man who was burned by two bad divorces. A very nice man by the way, who didn't deserve the financial beating he took, especially from wife #2.

Before he took wife #3 as his bride, she had only one stipulation before she would agree to the marriage.

That they sign a prenup wherein he retained all he had before their marriage should the marriage fail.

Because she knew that she loved him for what he was and not what he could offer her. Because she was a strong woman who knew she could stand on her own without financial assistance from him. And because she wanted him to know that her intentions were honorable.

Not all pre-nups are bad. Or signal mistrust. Sometimes they are just the opposite.

Now that's the kind of curveball I like! Nicely tossed, rebeccajo.

Note that in this case, the prenup was first and foremost a gift of love. It was a protection and reassurance of the other, not of self...

[KarenCee 3]

I'm wondering what twostar's reaction is these days now that everyone's had the opportunity to hash this out for him. I would hope that he and his fiancée have come to some conclusion to this fiasco...for the little girl's sake.

[Fandango 1,439]

You should do the decent thing and restore her life to where it was before she left everything she knew to be with you.

Legally, one thing....but do the right thing so you can look at yourself in the mirror.

You people are repugnant, coming to the defense of a gold digger. It just disgusts me how judgemental you all are here. Religious, moral thumping, fundamentalists of the worst kind.

Thank god he didn't marry. He was smart enough to see that she is indeed a gold digger. Once he married, he might have lost half of his assests. He was smart enough to prevent that from happening. And you all chastize him for that?

As Dean said, it's not an urban legend that foreign women from poor countries come to US for other motives than simple marriage. It's a fact of reality that many women do come to the US under a K-1 under false pretenses and many stupid American men under the delusion of "true love" are slaughtered like stupid little lambs. This guy is at least smart enough to not fall for it before it's too late.

Don't judge, lest you be judged!

Oh how I never tire of irony!

Let's put it this way...EVEN IF she's the worst gold digger on the planet, he brought her over here.

It's his responsibility to send her home, if that's the case. IF - and that's a big word -IF she got him to 'fall' for her scam....well, chalk it up to a hard lesson learned, but that doesn't end his responsibility.

But do we know she's a gold digger? Absolutely not. We are only going by what's been presented....he waited til she was here to broach a subject that should have been sorted BEFORE SHE EVER STEPPED ON A PLANE. But now she's here, with child in tow, and supposedly has agreed to sign this prenup, yet he's on here figuring out ways to remove himself from the situation HE'S PUT HIMSELF IN? A way which would help him get out of doing the right thing? no, sorry....from what he's put forth in these few topics, he is not bein honorable.

On the outside chance she IS a gold digger and HER intentions are not honorable, that doesn't justify him being equally as dishonorable. Either you are a person who does the right thing, or not. You can't govern others' actions...you can only govern your own. And true character comes from those choices we make when no one's there to notice

[Fandango 1,439]

SirLancelot,

An interesting set of statements.

On what basis have you judged that the woman is a "gold digger"?

Yodrak

You people are repugnant, coming to the defense of a gold digger. It just disgusts me how judgemental you all are here. .....

Don't judge, lest you be judged!

Yodrak, on the same basis that the chest-thumping moralists are coming out and attacking the OP for being a rotten scoundrel.

There is so much BS on this thread that it's the first time I've really been completely annoyed by the morons which post here. Normally I can tolerate the BS, but this time, it's gone above the level of even my tolerance--which is generally pretty high.

Who the hell said marriage has to be about love? Does the I129F petition EVER mention the word LOVE even once? The requirement is that the couple have met previously in the past two years prior to petitioning. The requirement is that the relationship be a genuine one, and not for the purpose of visa fraud. But NOWHERE does it mention that the two needs to be in love? A genuine relationship does NOT have to include love. There are plenty of pour countries around the world where the poor woman's purpose is to find a man with financial security to support her and her future children. It's supreme audacity of the worst kind when Western countries assume that every culture demands love for a marriage. I cannot put up with this arrogance and presumptions. And the love requirement for marriage is so recent even in Western history. As late as the 1800's, even in Europe and America, plenty of marriages were for financial reasons and not for love. This BS about love having to be the foundation of a marriage is #######! Arrogance of the worst kind.

The facts are not made up by me. It is well established that many beneficiaries are only interested with coming to the US. If they happen to land a rich guy with lots of assests, all the better when the divorce takes place and she gets half of his assests.

It is a prudent idea to have a pre-nup even for wealthy Americans marrying not-so wealthy Americans, it's imperative for a wealthy American to have a pre-nup when marrying a poor foreigner. It's simply smart. I can't imagine a single lawyer NOT advising that to their wealthy clients. It would be their fiduciary duty to do so. And I can't imagine a smart, wealthy American not doing so. The guy would be a moron and ridiculed by his wealthy collegues if he did not establish a pre-nup.

And to have all these holier than thou morons chest-thumping all this BS on this thread is beyond my tolerance.

It shows to me the true colors of many of these women on here. Gold diggers at heart, coming to the defense of like minded gold-digging sisters (Kristen excluded).

Repugnant!

Am I pissed? You bet your #######. The gloves are coming off!

For the record, I'm of the middle class. I don't have enough assests to protect so I won't be doing a pre-nup. But if I or my family had a lot of assests to protect, you bet your ####### I'd have a lawyer draw up an iron-clad pre-nup prior to the marriage. And if my SO refused to sign it, I would know her true intentions and would ask her to leave as well. There are few things in this world I can tolerate less than a gold digger! I am a romantic at heart and believe in true love, but I'm not stupid enough to delude myself into thinking the rest of the world all think this way as well. Love they can find easily in their own poor countries. What they have a much harder time finding are financially well off guys in their own countries.

I see Yodrak caught the same contradiction that I did

SirLancelot -

You seem to be misunderstanding what's being discussed here. I don't think any of us are saying she shouldn't sign the prenup so that she can rob him blind. I at least know I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that 1) it should have been broached long before now and 2) if the 'test drive' didn't do well for the OP, he has a moral obligation to return her to her previous situation.

If he didn't know her well enough....more fool him. But there's a legal term called 'detrimental reliance'. OP's fiancee can prove that she relied on his word...because she did so in such a manner that it caused a detriment to herself if he didn't hold up to his end of the agreement. Now I'm no lawyer, but I do remember learning about that in my Business Law classes in college. Whatever, I digress...

Look at the contrast of opinion here concerning a prenup.....some see it for the security it will bring, others see it as starting a marriage off on the wrong foot. Imagine what it must look like to someone who may or may not be familiar with 'the American way' and not speak English as a first language. Granted, the OP was pissed because she was opening his mail, but at the end of the day, when you embrace someone from a different culture, there's going to be some growing pains.

I think the majority of your post is you going off on an irrelevant tangent. You don't know the OP, you don' know what arrangement he and his fiancee have. You don't know if they've done the 'i love yous' or not...so when you tell people to not be so judgemental, perhaps you can take your own advice instead of what seems like some major speculative projection. Don't judge? How about tryin that out for a change?

Furthermore, I believe you owe many of us here an apology for your vicious and incorrect assumptions. You appear to be a very angry man, so I'll not hold my breath.

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm wondering what twostar's reaction is these days now that everyone's had the opportunity to hash this out for him. I would hope that he and his fiancée have come to some conclusion to this fiasco...for the little girl's sake.

Me too.

What bugs me about all this is I don't think the pre-nup is really about his assets.

I think he's seen some behaviors from his fiancee since her arrival that have set off some alarms in his head. I sense that the pre-nup is a knee-jerk reaction done in haste, rather like an animal in defense posture when they feel threatened. Or it's a power play.

If she's up to no good - well then that's not good either. But if she wasn't, twostars behavior has set the relationship back. Not a good way to start a marriage.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

What really conserns me is that he has done this all before.... brings a woman over on the promise of marriage and then changes his mind just before the 90 days are up....

Why oh why would someone go through all the hassle of immigration visas if they are not 100% sure that they want to marry this person.... it would seem that once he has changed his mind he does not care what happens to the woman and cant see any problem with what he has done...

I think it is 100% cruel to uproot someone from there home and family just so you can see if you think you might like to marry them.... and then discard them because you see somethings you dont like.....

We all see things in our SO that we maybe dont like but you work around these problems... that is part of being married and making it work... I think the OP either does not care what effect his actions have on these woman or is so thick he cant see the damage he is doing....

Kezzie

[KarenCee 3]

What really conserns me is that he has done this all before.... brings a woman over on the promise of marriage and then changes his mind just before the 90 days are up....

Why oh why would someone go through all the hassle of immigration visas if they are not 100% sure that they want to marry this person.... it would seem that once he has changed his mind he does not care what happens to the woman and cant see any problem with what he has done...

I think it is 100% cruel to uproot someone from there home and family just so you can see if you think you might like to marry them.... and then discard them because you see somethings you dont like.....

We all see things in our SO that we maybe dont like but you work around these problems... that is part of being married and making it work... I think the OP either does not care what effect his actions have on these woman or is so thick he cant see the damage he is doing....

Kezzie

That's the thing that bothers me too. I would hope if he sends her back that the USCIS would look at him a lot closer if he attempts something like this again.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Let's for sake of argument remove twostar and his fiancée from the situation for a moment. Let's just address the concept of presenting a prenup with sufficient advance notice, which seems to be the point of controversy, as I can see, and of course the element of distrust that you apparently believe a prenup conveys.

First off, before discussing how a prenup might send a poor message to the betrothed, it’s important to know what a prenup essentially addresses. A preunuptial is commonly viewed as an instrument to spare one spouse from providing for another, but indeed it has a variety of functions. These agreements can and often do address more than simply preserving assets of each party before the marriage occurs. Very often it dictates custody arrangements should there be children in the future or in many instances a prenuptial assigns more requirements on the part of each spouse to initiate divorce, essentially removing the ubiquitous ‘no fault’ grounds with something much more significant. In effect, it can stabilise a marriage. More importantly, in more traditional arrangements where one spouse takes leaves from the work force to raise children, while another forges ahead in his/her career, a prenup can provide for some sort of compensation, where courts now provide little to no long-term alimony. And, it can protect a widow(er) in the case of an untimely death when no will or testament is in place. So, as you can see, the instrument itself is not to be feared, and while it may be popularly perceived as portending the doom of the relationship, it can ease the cost to both parties in the event of marriage dissolution, it can and does equally serve to strengthen the union.

A prenup makes most sense when there is disparity in each party's accumulated assets and should be viewed as routine financial planning rather than a sign of bad faith or lack of commitment. The more familiar one is with the breadth and scope of a prenup (and there are many that introduce all sorts of arrangements) one will see that it can address many issues, to include income and asset distribution upon divorce and death. The agreement must on its face appear to be fair, otherwise a judge will likely strike it.

But more importantly, it has little effect on and changes nothing in a relationship which will sustain. The parties will enjoy the lifestyle afforded them by the accumulated assets of the couple with a prenup in place, just as if it had never been arranged. Whether one had contributed more to the mix than another in a sustaining relationship is of little importance. It only becomes important when and if the relationship fails. Much like assigning interest in one's assets to another. The day-to-day experience of each party is unaltered by the conveyance, and the only time it becomes germane is when or if those parties later part ways.

Noteworthy is that, at the beginning of every marriage, most believe in the communion of love between two people, most frequently overlook the fact that entering a marriage is also agreeing to a communion of property. Interestingly, if a marriage ends, property held between the two people is everyone's first concern. Human nature? Perhaps, but unarguable all the same A big advantage is that the couple is forced to have the all-important financial discussion before the marriage. Very often, in the blush of romance and love, the more mundane nitty-gritty, nuts and bolts detail of daily life is brushed under the carpet. Then, follows the rude awakening, once the routine that is married life has to be faced.. This becomes all important in the event that a business owner marries, and particularly in the case of professional practices, because a spouse effectively becomes a silent partner in the business.

Does a prenuptial presuppose a lack of trust in one or both parties? I’d rather suggest that it is grounded in realism rather than in distrust. As to timing. A prenup simply memorialises that which has already been discussed between parties. The essence of the prenup is to formalize the parties views on how their marriage will be handled in a day-to-day environment.

Well, frankly, I see your argument as a non sequitur. Does the fact that 50% of marriages now end in divorce really justify a prenup? I think you have to define what marriage should be before you can argue that. If you want to argue, as Sir Lancelot quite reasonably does, that marriages do not need to be based on love, then as far as I'm concerned a prenup is a perfectly reasonable course of action

A prenup does not change the basis upon which a marriage has been decided. Be it love, or another consideration, all that a prenup does is outline the course the parties will follow, both during the marriage and in the event of an end to the marriage.

However, if a marriage is defined as something based on love, then I think it is much more debatable that the 50% divorce rate is reasonable or right or something upon which we shouldn't try to improve

The divorce rate is related to the ease with which parties can escape the marriage. No fault grounds have simplified a quick exit from marriage, without declaring a viable reason. This speaks of the law not of an agreement that parties make in advance of marriage.

If the goal is to ameliorate the divorce rate, then I think preparing for the possibility of divorce before even walking down the aisle is not a dose of reality, it's a wrong turn.

Once again, your l;imited concept or understanding of the utility of a prenup might contribute to your perception. In fact, a prenup is not preparing for divorce, but preparing for the future…and if the future brings with it divorce, then that too.

Do I believe that every couple that signs a prenup will end up in divorce court? Of course not. Do I believe that prenups contribute to making divorce an easy option when it shouldn't be and, hence, directly or indirectly to the high divorce rate? You bet.

Again, the law makes divorce an easy option. The purpose of a prenup is to ease the cost and address the personal needs of the parties during a process that the law makes readily accessible and possible.

I think if more couples took the time to really get to know each other in advance and build solid trust, the need for prenups (and divorce) would be largely obviated by better decision-making in choosing a partner.

I believe the choice of the partner has preceded the presentation of a prenup. Agreed, choice of suitable partner is key to ensuring success in a marriage, and a prenup in no way prohibits suitable choice to be made.

However, if you want to add love into this mix, then I would presume it should in anyone's mind take precedence over consideration of any financial holdings--particularly if trust has properly developed between the partners. If you take the time to get to know someone and build trust from the beginning, the likelihood of a future divorce is going to decrease vastly.

And again, the precursor to marriage is getting to know someone. Whether a prenup was presented or not, twostar purportedly got to know his fiancée and she him. Why then would a prenup come of such a big surprise? Or was it that the parties didn’t really know each other well at all?

Hedging bets? OK, fine. I'll accept that. If I'm going to hedge my bets, I would much rather do so in favor of my marriage than against it. Betting against it is kind of like playing for a sports team and betting against your own success. Not much confidence there, eh? What does this sort of thing communicate within the relationship...? I don't think anything good. It's already a premise of "what if we don't last." I think that to be successful, lasting, and healthy, a marriage has to forged on a basic attitude of "we will find a way, no matter what." Do you see why I would take that position?

If viewed correctly, one could argue that a prenup could be “We’re going to make a go of this no matter what, but in the event that we fail let’s make sure we decide what happens to our estate, rather than some judge who doesn’t know us at all!”

You're already introducing doubt. "In the event of failure." In preparing, you accept the possibility. I believe that the most successful couples don't allow for the possibility of failure.

In the blush of romance, I’d be willing to suggest that a large majority of folks don’t view the potential for failure, as well. However, historically, failure occurs, whether we like it or not.

They develop trust, and they plow through whatever comes...together.

The existence of a prenup does not obviate this in a couple either.

If you take the time to know your partner in advance, to truly look at their character, materialistic attitude will definitely be evident long before you walk down an aisle. If that's what you see/find, it's perhaps time to look elsewhere--BEFORE you get married. How's that for removing "ugly" as you call it? I'd say it's a pretty sound plan.

Then if, for argument’s sake, twostar is being materialistic in presenting his fiancée a prenup, wouldn’t his fiancée have seen this long before the prenup was presented?

As for foggy zones...Legal agreements may (and I say "may" because our courts are full of examples of legal agreements that solved nothing) eliminate legal fog. Legal agreements cannot, however, eliminate relational and spiritual fog. However much money may be the visible issue in a marital conflict, I can guarantee you that it is generally a very good cover for something much more fundamental--quite often a struggle for control and power within the relationship. You're trying to improve an ailment (interrelational conflict) with the wrong tonic, insofar as I can see.

Your opinion, but I suspect not based upon hard facts. Infidelity and monetary issues are the primary causes of marriage conflict and ultimate divorce. By the way, a survey was performed in New York a couple of years ago, by the investment firm Oppenheimer, and it unearthed that both women and men hide money from each other in marriage. 1,000 female and male investors were interviewed and of those 1,000 it was determined that 40% of women and 36.8% of men said they maintained a checking, savings or brokerage account to which their spouse didn’t have access. Further, 24% of males and 26% of females indicated that money would be the primary item they were most likely to hide from their spouse. Hard to argue that money can be a key element in marital conflict.

Twostar himself claims that his fiancé did agree to sign, despite her negative reaction. His problem was with her negative reaction. What did he expect, throwing that at her at the last minute? It was entirely out of the blue.

I believe in one of twostar’s posts he claimed that they had discussed the prenup about a month prior and of course, following your comment that parties get to know each other before marrying, I am sure finances came up before that as well.

The fact that she ultimately acquiesced is interesting. My guess is that she felt she had little choice. She has little or NO power in the relationship right now. She's on foreign soil. She can be deported if her fiancé chooses not to marry her and decides not to do the right thing by her--whatever that is. Once you've left everything, how do you go back, especially knowing that your ex-husband is in the process of stripping you of anything you have left? Any way you slice it, she's in a very vulnerable position. And that would suck for anybody.

Everyone has a choice to go through with a marriage or not. Would ending the engagement now be inconvenient? Yes, I am sure it would be, but if that is her sense, she owes it to herself and her daughter to do so, not go along with something she’s not in support of. Perhaps one could also ask, how can a woman, and particularly one with a minor child that she has to care for, conscion coming to a country without reviewing the “what if’s” beforehand? It is a two-way street.

I think Twostar had a responsibility to inform her of his intentions to ask for a prenup long ago so that this kind of situation could have been avoided.

Yes, possibly, but that does not obviate her responsibility to address her and her child’s future, in the absence of such planning on twostar’s part. No?

As others have now mentioned, it would appear that this man has "returned" another fiancée to her country in the past. This should raise an eyebrow, if nothing else, about his idea of marriage, his potential willingness to put people in difficult/impossible situations, and his sense of morals and ethics. Something's not right here. The prenup, in my best estimation, is just the tip of the iceberg here. Just a hunch. I can't back it up. But based on what I've seen, I'm pretty comfortable with my perceptions.

While I don’t know the details, nor do any of us, for that matter, I’d applaud someone calling an end to a relationship, albeit perhaps not at the best of time or under the best of circumstance, than to “acquiesce”. That dooms the relationship from the outset, in my opinion. Further, I think to term it “returning” a fiancée a very unfortunate choice of phrase. He decided not to marry prior to the 90days. Indeed, a better choice in the long run than to have consummated the marriage and dealt with the incompatibility later.

It is my understanding from his posts that Twostar's question about time was indeed in relationship to the visa...which should, again, speak volumes. It is clearly NOT about giving his fiancé time to adapt. He's already thinking in terms of the failure of the relationship and where his responsibility ends. He wants as little responsibility as possible. He's asking only what he is BOUND to do by law...not what he OUGHT to do out of moral responsibility. Not pretty...

Twostar asked of his responsibility, under the terms of the K1 visa. He did not address any moral obligation, but that doesn’t mean he does not feel he has one.

Well, again, you're making an assumption that her reaction was about money...or that anyone's would be. There are people like me who would simply see this as an issue of trust...and understand from such a request that we were not trusted. Such a request would also communicate the expectation that the relationship might fail. What woman wants to learn from her future husband that he's already preparing for a day that their impending marriage might fail? It doesn't communicate confidence in the person who's being asked to sign the prenup or in the quality of the relationship to which the two parties both contribute. I think there are lots of reasons ASIDE from money that would cause me or others to be incredibly unhappy, shocked, disappointed, or even devastated by a request for a prenup.

Alternatively, perhaps it could also be viewed as testament to how little she knew of the man she’d already chosen to marry?

It would seem to me that providing for others after your death is what a will and testament is for. You can certainly discuss with a future spouse your desire to provide for your own children and talk about how finances would be allotted to any future progeny, etc, then record it in a will without introducing a prenup. A will is a provision for those left behind. A prenup is a provision for failure. There's a huge difference.

Agreed, a will does address these matters. Many people under a certain age do not have a will prepared. Once again, perhaps this is indeed another case of hedging bets that this will not occur.

As for her being smart and savvy if she expects a prenup, I very respectfully and strenuously disagree. I'm a very smart and savvy woman if I do say so myself...and I would not expect a prenup no matter how wealthy my fiancé. I would never marry for anything but love. I would expect the same of my fiancé (do, in fact). Money doesn't change the equation. Healthy, solid trust=no need for a prenup.

As stated above, a prenup oftentimes addresses the iniquities inherent in current law. A loving couple can construct a prenup to make sure that a loved one is taken care of in the manner they choose, rather than leaving it up to community property distribution.

And incidentally, how could she expect a prenup when he didn't mention a thing about it until she had her feet on American soil? This is not the sort of thing you bring up at the last minute. At least, it shouldn't be. By failing to mention it until now, he gave her one impression, then seriously altered upon her arrival. In anyone's book that would be a shock. He didn't tip his whole hand until it was too late. He sort of faked her out.

It was discussed beforehand, by twostar’s post. Quite possibly, his fiancé didn’t take the discussion to heart then, or maybe she hoped it would not come to fruition? How responsible is that?

Again, respectfully, I think this thought misses the point. Twostar took on certain moral and ethical responsibilities (or at least he should have) in bringing this woman and her child to the United States--including care of the child he petitioned to bring here. No matter how nicely that mother tries to shield or paint things for her child, that child is now likely already experiencing the double sting of rejection and instability. Kids are not stupid. They pick up the truth very quickly, even if it's only subconsciously. The messages that will be sent--that are probably already being sent--are going to be damaging. I don't see any way around that. And Twostar has a good deal of responsibility for that.

Yes, when children are involved extra care must be taken to minimise the effect of a change of heart, for whatever reason that change of heart occurs. Both should exercise a great deal of care to make sure that the child is settled quickly and painlessy.

[SirLancelot 1]

I'm wondering what twostar's reaction is these days now that everyone's had the opportunity to hash this out for him. I would hope that he and his fiancée have come to some conclusion to this fiasco...for the little girl's sake.

I think he's seen some behaviors from his fiancee since her arrival that have set off some alarms in his head. I sense that the pre-nup is a knee-jerk reaction done in haste, rather like an animal in defense posture when they feel threatened. Or it's a power play.

If she's up to no good - well then that's not good either. But if she wasn't, twostars behavior has set the relationship back. Not a good way to start a marriage.

I've read this sentiment in many posts throughout this thread and it simply makes no sense to me. There is NO need for him to find justification (or to put it more bluntly, to use an excuse) to not marry her. If he doesn't want to marry her, he doesn't have to. Just as there's no legal requirement for her to marry him if she finds out he's a wife beater or some such. There is absolutely no reason to bring up a pre-nup agreement to scare her off if he didn't want to marry her. All he had to say is: You're not the woman I thought you were and having lived with you for the past two months, I can clearly see that we will not be compatible if we marry. This is not working out and it's best that you return to your country before the 90 days is up.

I suspect that woman would not leave as she's already overstayed her previous visa to the US by 3 years! That's right, this fiance previously visited the US and ended up overstay her then visa by 3 years! That's how honest and honorable she is. At any rate, I digress.

Getting back to the main point. There is no need for the OP to make any excuses. The pre-nup was not a justification to get rid of her. He could have use a million different kind of excuses to scare her off. He could have said he's seeing another woman now. He could have hinted that he has some predilection for young girls (hint her daughter). He could have said he went bankrupt in the past several days on a bad business deal. The list just goes on. There was absolutely no reason to use pre-nup as the excuse for the way out. In fact, he doesn't even have to give a reason. It's his choice. No one can force a man, or a woman, to marry. It doesn't even matter if he wrote a contract with her that he will marry her. That can NOT be legally enforced. I repeat, you can't force a person to marry in the US.

A pre-nup was precisely use to protect his assets in the event the marriage doesn't work out. And after seeing her reaction to the pre-nup idea, I think that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Along with everything else he might not have been happy with, the strong negative reaction to the pre-nup sealed the deal for him. He could not marry this woman.

No matter how much love there is in any relationship, people with a lot of assets will be protecting the assets as priority #1, especially in the beginning of the relationship. The pre-nup can always be re-written after the marriage, or even torn up, if the marriage really works out. But it's simply a prudent idea in the beginning.

I'm not going to repeat what Diadromous mermaid has written. She has written very eloquently about what a pre-nup is or is not. There's been more information about a pre-nup written in this thread than most people will learn in a lifetime.

[Krikit 1,164]

I cannot comment on the OP's original question as I do not know the answer. However, I wanted to give a bit of perspective on the pre-nup issue...

I am a widow.

I have 2 children from that union.

I have significant assets.

I am remarrying.

When I went into my first marriage, I believed we would be together forever. The possibility of divorce never entered my mind. The reality of sudden death brought home to me that nothing is forever. I am not entering this new marriage with the possibility of divorce in mind, either. However, there are two children to consider. I am in agreement with Mermaid's statements. Pre-nups are a wise financial decision under certain circumstances.