[dpark]

If you select someone as your mate who is mostly interested in you for your money, then you should expect that they will take a big chunk of your money if you divorce. I don't mean this in a "you deserve it" kind of way, but in a "this is the relationship you agreed to" way.

If your mate is with you for your money and you are with them for their youth and looks, then assuming you stay with them long enough that after a divorce much of their youth and good looks are gone, why shouldn't they get some of your money? You got their most valuable assets.

[DefaultUserHN]

You're assuming that only gold diggers will take half your money when they divorce you.

But that's not true. Under United States laws, all women will take half your money when they divorce you. Doesn't matter that they're gold diggers or not.

And also, most women marries up (marry a guy who makes more than her), not down.

[dpark]

I'm not assuming anything. If you are worried about your spouse taking "your money", then don't marry someone who isn't bringing in a similar amount of money. It's not complex.

This whining about women taking "your money" in a divorce is absurd. Get a prenup or marry someone with as much or more money. If you marry someone with less money (i.e. someone "marrying up") then you are knowingly "marrying down". Don't whine about fairness. This isn't a problem with the courts being "unfair" so much as a problem with people being petty.

[pmarreck]

> Get a prenup

Always a pleasant conversation to start... ;)

> or marry someone with as much or more money.

This strategy works around an artificial limitation imposed by the law which limits your dating pool quite a bit, and overly penalizes the successful. Of 20-odd women I've dated, exactly one made more money than me.

> This whining about women taking "your money" in a divorce is absurd

In medicine, when we evaluate treatments, we base it on statistical efficacy. In law, when we evaluate guilt, we base it on evidence. When determining safe traffic laws (such as requiring seatbelts, we look at accident statistics. But for some reason, in marriage, a high failure rate is always "someone else's problem with commitment". (Along the same lines, I suppose fatality rates from accidents where seat belts weren't used are "someone else's problem with driving"!) No one stops to think "ok so maybe marriage itself may be the problem that needs some tweaking", and evaluates marriage changes/expectations based on empirical efficacy (lasting marriages). In the meantime, women profit off the pains of sorry men in failed relationships. Why is that?

[DefaultUserHN]

I agree.

She doesn't have to be a gold digger to take half your money because the laws still applies regardless of her gold-digging status.

The proper way to handle this is to marry some who makes the same or more than you.

[dpark]

Or just accept that in a divorce, things will be split more or less equally in the absence of a prenup.

I make more than my wife. If we got divorced, her getting half the assets would not be the biggest problem.

[DefaultUserHN]

It's up to each person to decide what they find acceptable and act accordingly.