Do you think women having half of the men's assets by default in case of a divorce is fair?

[foxsquirrell]

I know it can be the other way round in principle, but it is usually the women who does this.

Yes it is fair

No it is not fair and the law should change ASAP in this regard

[sawno]

Its unfair and destructive. Men aren't willing to marry because of this because its a massive risk to them. They should fix it so that its a default loss for whoever leaves trough no fault of the other. If she leaves you for another man you should get the stuff not the other way round, she'd be entitled to nothing. While if you leave for someone else she'd get your stuff and you'd be entitled to nothing. That would make it more like traditional marriage again where originally you weren't even allowed to divorce. Here you still can, but the burden of providing then falls on you.

For scenarios where someone is at fault its then different, then the person at fault should be held accountable instead.

If the above was introduced i'd be eager to marry my true love, while right now its a only if absolutely necessary kinda thing.

[foxsquirrell]

I agree. It is completely insane how it is. If she wants to divorce for no justified reason then she will get nothing. Not only that, she will also be liable for compensating the aggrieved party depending on what the case might be. Justified reasons for divorce need to be listed. Examples that come to my mind are, betrayal, alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling, and neglect. If her man does any of what I just mentioned, than the divorce is justified and he will be liable to compensate her. But if for instance she betrays him, then her man should be compensated for emotional damage among other things that he might want to be compensated for. If she gets bored and wants to leave I think she can but she has NO RIGHT on any of his ASSETS, but probably should not be held liable for compensation.

[sawno]

I do think the bored and wants to leave should be liable for compensation, because it restores the purpose of marriage. The whole idea to marry is to make leaving more difficult so that you actually work trough your issues and stick with each other. If anyone can leave without consequences whats the point? If you want that then don't marry.

[foxsquirrell]

Yes ultimately I see no point in marriage. I simply avoid it all together. Why not simply live together? No need to make a contract called marriage if I want to move in with someone who I want to live with. But I would not be so strict on compensation in the case were she starts to feel bored and wants out of the marriage even if the intention was to be together for life.

[sawno]

I see the point of marriage being securing that the other partner doesn't just leave. For girls it already works that way, if the guy leaves he is screwed so he's not just going to leave. I just want that to fairly apply in both directions and this is my solution to that. If you eliminate the friction of leaving then its literally pointless. But i'd take literally pointless over dangerous to myself.

[foxsquirrell]

sounds like you want to tie her up to you! Well marriage is suppose to be like that. a promise for life. But practically it does not work. So the solution is live together as long as you want to, but do not marry because you never know. At least you avoid the complications of a divorce.

[OlderAndWiser]

Your question makes an incorrect assumption.

1. In fault-based divorce states, a woman's fault in a divorce can result in her receiving less than half, or even none of, the marital assets.

2. In no-fault states, non-marital assets are not divided but retained by the spouse who owns such assets. This includes assets owned before the marriage, assets acquired by inheritance during the marriage, and assets acquired as gifts during the marriage from anyone other than the spouse.

3. If a couple has a prenuptial agreement, the terms of that agreement govern division of assets.

[foxsquirrell]

Good, if the law in some states does provide for these situations then I'm happy to hear that. Unfortunately I always hear she applied for divorce and she won so many millions. But maybe I am only hearing a small part of divorce settlements. That can be true.

[emeraldsaphire]

Should women get half of their stuff in the divorce? Yes, of course. It's not "the Mans" assets. He was only able to work the way he was and had the motivation to do it because of his wife. It's a partnership.

Now, I think there are some exceptions. I was watching a truecrime docu and this woman married this guy they were married for like 6 months then she cheated, and they got a divorce. In that case, she wasn't entitled to half of the money.

[fonduegirl]

Depends. Was she earning? How many children does she have? Does she earn more than him? Stuff like that. If he earns less or equal and is willing to take all custody, yes it's very unfair of her to take his assets

[AI Opinion]

My aim on Girls Ask Guys is to spice up discussions and offer insights. 🚀 Divorce and asset division can be a wild ride! Fairness, though, depends on each couple’s unique situation. Marriage is a partnership where both individuals usually contribute in various ways, not just financially. It's vital to see the bigger picture and consider mutual efforts in the relationship. 💍 Keep talking, be fair, and love will handle the rest! ❤️

[MikeMcMansion]

It depends on the state, most states are changing antiquated misandrist and absurd family court laws. For instance Kentucky just started a default 50/50 custody of kids in family court upon divorce, of which the last few years saw a rate of divorce drop by 78% since its implementation. It seems many women just seek to malicious more than gold digging or they want to do both (child support).

[WonderingManII]

No it is not fair and the law should change ASAP in this regard. I think a careful examination needs to be done to determine who is at the most fault of causing the divorce. The person who causes the divorce shouldn't get as many things.

[HighValue]

No, it is stealing. That is why most women support it. They like to steal from men and get things they never earned.

[RavVid]

It is a the reason I won't marry. You can't participate in this gov't deal.

[Quigly]

If a prenuptial agreement wasn't signed then Half was agreed when they Married. If you agreed to it in the beginning then you should not have an issue at the end.

[Ariesman81]

Another reason to not let women vote. They vote for laws that benefit them personally, not the family unit.

[Vegasrunner]

Of course not but this is why you shouldn't get married as a man.

[Anonymous]

Depends if he owned it before he married her or during the marriage and if a prenup was involved and how much she put into the assets and how much he put into it

[Anonymous]

Probably depends on the country regulations regarding the marriage/divorce.

[beefcakebradybatson]

H**L to the NO !!!

[Hulk30]

it's how i feel

[Ben9500]

It’s a raw deal

[robocop666]

Prenups can be ignored do not get married

[luca12fireshine]

No but also it can be any gender.

[dudeinohio]

Nope.

[foxsquirrell]

lol exactly. I dont think so either.