Comment on: Competing for Love: Applying Sexual Economics Theory to Mating Contests

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318768331_Competing_for_Love_Applying_Sexual_Economics_Theory_to_Mating_Contests

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748701630277X


This was an interesting paper.  One thing that the paper does not discuss is the influence of the government in sexual economics.  The highlights on page

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748701630277X

include

•

Men compete both individually and in groups to amass resources to exchange for sex.

•

Because men can compete as groups, male competition is less zero sum than women’s.

The fact that men cooperate with other men in groups is highlighted, apparently meant to indicate that women do not cooperate in groups.  Indeed the paper comments

"The deficit in women’s cooperation with women has been apparent throughout history and continues to be evident among modern samples ... "

In my view the authors are ignoring some hugely successful cooperative strategies among women.  The authors talk about why cartels are not too effective for women, but ignore what has been very successful for women.  Collectively, women have been able to use the government to block, or at a minimum impede, a  man's capability to get a market price for his resources.  This is especially true for  men with substantial resources.  Consider:

A woman marrying a much more financially successful man has essentially no legally enforceable marital obligations and no financial obligations upon divorce.  The man often has huge financial obligations to supply the woman her "entitlements."  So, it is obvious that she is getting entitlements, but what is he getting? She has no obligation to supply children, sex, or even companionship.  He gets nothing remotely commensurate with his obligations.  

Even when women enter prenuptial agreements,  the women are often able to use government power to void or alter the prenup, thus removing a  man's capability to get a market price for his resources. Women also cooperate, sometimes successfully, to use the government to increase the demand for the group's sex by (among other ways)

1. Making prostitution illegal
2. Making it more difficult for men to obtain "mail order brides."  For example, some women in the United States are cooperating with each other against the interests of many competing foreign women who desire an American husband.  (Interestingly, this puts American women in collusion with very patriarchal societies [e.g. the Philippines] that want to keep "their" women from obtaining fair market value.)
3. Restricting substitutes like pornography and fembots

By and large, groups of women have been reasonably successful at using government to distort the market in their favor. As with most government distortions in marketplaces, there are winners and losers, with the losers attempting to counteract the government action.  For example, see

• The Defense of Default Marriage Entitlements and Epicycles
  https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2017/10/marriage-entitlements-and-epicyles.html
• Marriage Entitlement Ideology - No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
  https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/marriage--no-good-deed-goes-unpunished.html

• Beggar Psychology and Family Law Psychology

  https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/beggar-psychology-and-family-law.html

A Female Preference for Irrationality? The Pure Nonsense of FEMINISTS & CONTRACT DOCTRINE

A Female Preference for Irrationality?  FEMINISTS & CONTRACT DOCTRINE


https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ILR/pdf/vol32p1247.pdf

"Therefore, it should not be surprising that “law” incorporates and reflects male gender traits. Some of these traits are identified as the preference  for rationality over other ways of knowing (e.g., intuition); for objectivity over subjectivity; for abstraction over contextualization; and for hierarchical decision making over consensus or compromise. Contract law, like law more generally,  is said to be male-gendered because of the perceived presence of these traits.  In other words, contract law is not neutral; it is one of the many social structures that supports a male preference. Further, it is not objective; it has a perspective, but its point of view is masked."

In addition to being strange reasoning,  this seems to be self-contradictory. It is a male preference for "objectivity over subjectivity" but the law incorporates male gender traits and "it is not objective?" So if the law is not objective, how does the law incorporate the male preference for objectivity?

Perhaps, one must be irrational to make sense of this apparent contradiction?

Rationality versus other ways of knowing?  For something to be knowledge, it must be true. A belief that is demonstrably false cannot be "knowledge." A belief that is unsupported by objective evidence cannot be termed "knowledge" because it might not be true.  Intuition may be based on knowledge, but intuition itself is not knowledge. Sometimes intuition is not correct. When the intuition is objectively shown to be factual, then it becomes knowledge.

If contracts were never disputed, this paper's attack on rationality and objectivity would be moot. But, in any disputed contract, there will have to be an objective judgment of the actions to be taken. The judgment cannot be "subjective" with each party to the contract deciding that the judgment means different things.  That is, in the end, contract law has to be objective.  This paper seems to be arguing against writing contracts that are as clear and objective as possible, in favor of intentionally subjective and ambiguous contracts.  This would seem to be a recipe for ensuring that legal judgments are arbitrary and capricious, depending mostly on the whim of the court, rather than an agreement between the parties.

The Fantastic Assertion that Prenuptial Agreements Cause the "Feminisation of Poverty"

The rather incredible assertion in the links below that prenuptial agreements cause the feminisation of poverty seems implausible.  (Note that my expertise is in the theory of fair games and unbiased results. The default marriage entitlements are both biased and unfair in a mathematical sense.)


Who Gets a Better Deal? Women and Prenuptial Agreements in Australia and the USA

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228146192_Who_Gets_a_Better_Deal_Women_and_Prenuptial_Agreements_in_Australia_and_the_USA

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWSLawRw/2003/6.html#Heading84

Prenuptial agreements have the potential to 'further entrench' the ‘feminisation of poverty’ upon divorce.[86]

 Perhaps it is different in Australia, but in the USA financially successful men want prenuptial contracts because men perceive  the default marriage entitlements as outrageously unfair. Consider:

A woman marrying a much more financially successful man has essentially no legally enforceable marital obligations and no financial obligations upon divorce.  The man often has huge financial obligations to supply the woman her "entitlements."  So, it is obvious that she is getting entitlements, but what is he getting? She has no obligation to supply children, sex, or even companionship.  He gets nothing remotely commensurate with his obligations.  

Three things are common about prenuptial contracts in the USA

1. Prenuptial contracts are almost always used to level the marriage playing field.  As noted above,  the woman has no obligations to the man.  A prenuptial agreement usually limits the obligations that the man has to the woman to achieve a better balancing of the obligations.  (For instance,  the prenuptial agreement may protect premarital assets.) 
2. A woman  marrying a much more financially successful man with a prenuptial contract almost invariably does better financially, both in marriage and in divorce, than if she marries a man at her own financial status without a prenuptial contract.  Is this really in question? 
3.  A woman marrying a much more financially successful man with a prenuptial contract will not do as well as if she were able to marry him without a prenuptial contract. This does not indicate that the prenuptial agreement is "unfair" to her.  

What fraction (FP) of women divorcing under a prenuptial contract end up in poverty? What fraction (FN) of women divorcing without a prenuptial contract end up in poverty? Unless FP > FN, how can prenuptial agreements be blamed for the ‘feminisation of poverty’ upon divorce?  My guess is that very few women divorcing under a prenuptial contract will be below the poverty line whereas substantial numbers of women divorcing without a prenuptial contract will be below the poverty line.  I am open to evidence, but at the moment, blaming prenuptial contracts for poverty seems to be based on some questionable reasoning.  

Family law provides a perverse set of incentives/disincentives for successful men. See 

• Marriage Entitlement Ideology - No Good Deed Goes Unpunished https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/marriage--no-good-deed-goes-unpunished.html
• Beggar Psychology and Family Law Psychology https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/beggar-psychology-and-family-law.html

Here are my best guesses, absent evidence to the contrary:

• The more courts interfere with binding prenuptial contracts,  the less likely financially successful men are to get married.  If men do marry, they are more likely to marry a woman with similar financial prospects.  (Indeed, this was my case, though some women hated my solution.  "My Chinese Wife and Marriage Entitlement Ideologues" https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/05/my-chinese-wife-and-marriage.html) This leads to stratification in the marriage market with financially successful men marrying financially successful women.  Even with a prenuptial agreement, these successful women are very unlikely to fall into poverty.  
• When less financially successful women marry similarly less financially successful men (without a prenuptial agreement), those women are more likely to be in poverty after divorce. 
• When less financially successful women have children and do not marry, these women and their children are the most vulnerable to fall into poverty.
• Unless evidence is supplied that women marrying with a prenuptial contract are more likely to fall into poverty than women marrying without a prenuptial contract, one can only speculate that the paper's assertion is probably false as it is very counter-intuitive.  My best guess is that the paper and/or its cited references do not have any evidence that (as defined above FP > FN) women divorcing under a prenuptial agreement are at higher risk of falling into poverty.  My best guess is that a simplistic abuse of statistics leads to the paper's improbable conclusion. It might be simple faulty reasoning that because women divorcing under a prenuptial contract get less than they would have gotten by default,  women are poorer than they would have been; therefore,  poverty increases.  But, one cannot conclude that because women got less in the divorce they fall below the poverty line.  For example, if PL is the poverty line, then it might well be that without the prenup the woman would be at 10*PL and with the prenup she would be at 5*PL.

Prenups and the Strange Reasoning about "Bargaining Power"

Assertions by some lawyers that prenups are unfair because of "unequal bargaining power" is fascinating. The reasoning seems circular in some cases?

Take a look at

Mackay, Anita --- "Who Gets a Better Deal? Women and Prenuptial Agreements in Australia and the USA" [2003] UWSLawRw 6; (2003) 7(1) University of Western Sydney Law Review 109

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWSLawRw/2003/6.html#Heading84

Normally men require prenups with women that otherwise would be financially dangerous to the men. This usually means that:

1. The man is more financially successful in wealth, earning power, or both than the woman.
2. The man perceives that the default marriage contract is so outrageously unfair that he resorts to the time, trouble, and expense involved with a prenup.

In discussing bargaining power, one usually assumes that there is a bargain involved in which each of the parties gets something they value. The definition of a bargain is

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bargain

"an agreement between parties settling what each gives or receives in a transaction between them or what course of action or policy each pursues in respect to the other"

A woman marrying a much more financially successful man has essentially no legally enforceable marital obligations and no financial obligations upon divorce.  The man often has huge financial obligations to supply the woman her "entitlements."  So, it is obvious that she is getting entitlements, but what is he getting? She has no obligation to supply children, sex, or even companionship.  He gets nothing in the marriage transaction.  

Firstly, desire to ensure the marriage occurs reduces a woman’s bargaining power.[60] It may make rejecting a prenuptial agreement outright very difficult if the woman doing so believes that it will result in her fiancé not proceeding with the wedding.

I have seen similar comments about unequal bargaining power because women desire to get married more than men in a number of commentaries/articles. Furthermore, many women especially want to marry financially successful men.  The obvious solution to a difference in desire for marriage is to reduce the default entitlements so that marrying a financially successful man is not so beneficial.  Indeed there seems to be an excess of poor men desiring marriage:

From (Why men are having problems getting married)


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-men-are-having-problems-getting-married/

If it’s universally acknowledged that a single man with a good fortune needs a wife, the American economy may be now illustrating the inverse of that corollary: Poor men with dwindling job prospects are going to lack marriage prospects. 

On the high male income/wealth side there is an excess of women desiring marriage and on the low male income/wealth side there is a deficit of women desiring marriage. Reducing the entitlements would reduce the number of women desiring to marry financially successful men and thereby tend to equalize the bargaining power associated with the desire to get married. As an added benefit, it might also help the marriage prospects on the low male income/wealth side.

But, Anita Mackay indicates that she thinks the background (default) entitlements are inadequate?  This seems a bit of a circular loop.  

1. Financially successful men are in high demand and short supply.  Many women will compete for such men, giving these men high bargaining power in whether they get married, who they marry,  and whether to enter a prenuptial agreement.
2. Financially successful men are disinclined to marry without a prenup because they perceive the default legal entitlements as unfair with no legal benefits commensurate with the value of the entitlements.
3. The woman's bargaining power is low because she desires marriage more than the man.
4. To solve this bargaining power problem, Anita Mackay wants to increase the default entitlements.
5. With the default entitlements increased,  financially successful men will desire marriage even less.
6. The woman's bargaining power is now even lower because she really desires marriage even more, and has increased competition to worry about,  because of the increased entitlements.  Financially successful men are in even higher demand and shorter supply. GO TO 1

From Facebook: I Don't Look Good Naked Anymore

https://www.facebook.com/paw.man.3/videos/10208007681138791/


Whew! Aging is not good, but I am not suffering from "dunlap's disease," I can still see my feet.


Dunlap's disease afflicts many older men. The symptom is when your "belly done laps over your belt."

Mutually Nonconsensual Sex

This would be funny if it were not so serious:


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/title-ix-is-too-easy-to-abuse/561650/

Prenuptial Escape in Australia - Amazingly Bad Court Decision

If one is engaged and will not get married without a prenuptial agreement,  this is now "undue influence?"  So, one needs to get a prenuptial agreement before the engagement now? 

If a woman has signed a prenuptial agreement and decides later that she won't marry under the prenuptial agreement, is this undue influence on the man?  If he marries her anyway, does she lose the entitlements she had previously signed away in the prenuptial contract because of the threat not to marry under the prenup?  Want to bet?

When he changes his mind about whether marrying under the default marriage contract is wise and refuses to marry without a prenuptial contract, the law calls this undue influence. On the other hand, if she changes her mind about whether marrying under the prenuptial contract is wise and refuses to marry without the default marriage contract, the law does not consider this undue influence? 

This is a disgustingly bad,  asymmetric, and inconsistent decision. One of the latest epicycles to the marriage entitlement ideology. 

 https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2017/10/marriage-entitlements-and-epicyles.html

========================================================

https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1002469-cardiff-academics-research-applied-by-the-high-court-of-australia


Dr Thompson commented, “The effect of this judgment is significant. The High Court of Australia has introduced a much more expansive and contextual understanding of what can constitute undue influence. It was previously unclear whether a court would find undue influence when one party threatened to end an engagement unless a prenuptial agreement was signed. The High Court has now established that the effects of such threats are important and relevant to whether a prenuptial agreement has been entered into freely.”

========================================================

My Chinese Wife and Marriage Entitlement Ideologues

When I first meet a woman roughly my own age (retired) and start conversing,  typical questions are about occupation and/or family.  Usually the questions about occupation terminate quickly after I mention that I was a scientist specializing in Monte Carlo methods;  there is not usually a mutual interest in science.  Inasmuch as I married late (38 years old) and I married a Chinese woman (27) from Shanghai, people, especially women are often very curious.  After the second or third time answering questions about my Chinese wife, I developed a fairly standard response, as indicated below.  The marriage entitlement ideologues seem to go crazy when I mention that I married a Shanghai woman who was not financially dangerous to me.

Timing

My understanding of family law made a late marriage likely. (I am analytical by nature, which is perhaps why science and mathematics appealed to me.)  Marriage stood out as probably the most financially risky gamble that I would ever make.  (See https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/dont-think-with-your-dick-valuable.html)  Family law often considered valuable licenses, credentials, and degrees as marital property if they were obtained during the marriage. Family law then credited the spouse with half the value of the degree in a divorce. Thus, it made no sense to consider marriage before obtaining my PhD. So, the law is responsible for some of the reasons that I did not start thinking about marriage and a family until after finishing my PhD.



Why a Chinese (Shanghai) Wife?

The short answer is that she was the first woman I wanted that said "yes."

I had made a very good stock market investment while working a bit between MS and PhD degrees. These large premarital assets needed to be protected by a prenuptial agreement.  I wanted a wife who was intellectually attractive, physically attractive, young enough to start a family, and not financially dangerous to me.

Perhaps it is different today, but 30 or 40 years ago most women I met were fervently against negotiating prenuptial contracts.  If I married a woman who would not negotiate compromises on a marriage contract, why would I believe she would compromise during the marriage? It made no sense to me.  These women clearly had very different values and a very different idea of fairness than I had.   These women and I were mutually unsuitable for marriage.  (At this point many of the women hearing my story volunteered, unprompted, that they would never have negotiated a prenuptial contract. Perhaps it was their way of confirming my assessment that most women would not compromise on marriage entitlements.  Judging from the tone of the comments, it sometimes seemed to be almost a matter of pride?)

When asked what I meant by "financially dangerous", I pointed out that family law punished good deeds and argued as in
https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/marriage--no-good-deed-goes-unpunished.html
https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/beggar-psychology-and-family-law.html
Most of the women did not argue with the logic behind avoiding a "financially dangerous" wife.  Many commented that they had never thought about the legal aspects of family law.  Most women were just interested and were not hostile toward me.

A small (20% ?) fraction of women seemed offended that I had analyzed the situation and had acted accordingly.  This small fraction was outright hostile and expressed an amazing list of accusations.  One would have thought that I had somehow negatively affected them personally.  Some of the accusations do not make much sense to me, but I will list them anyway.

1. Apparently wanting to negotiate a prenuptial contract is misogynistic. (Why?)
2. I was accused of having an Asian fetish. (I like all attractive women of any race.)
3. The reason I married a Chinese woman was to have a submissive wife. (I lived with her for 5 months before marriage and had no illusions that she was aggressive and not submissive.)
4. I had taken advantage of an uneducated Chinese woman's willingness to sign a prenup. (Nope, she has a MS degree in electrical engineering.)
5. The only reason she married me was that I was an American and she could stay in the United States.  This, of course, was my fault and not her fault. I was exploiting her due to a "power inequality" because I was an American. (She was a graduate engineering student at Clemson University in South Carolina.  There were probably ten times as many men in her classes as women. Additionally, she was physically fit, trim, attractive, and very smart.  I do not think she had any trouble attracting men.  It boggles the imagination that I had any special "American advantage" over the American men in her classes.  She had lots of available American  mate choices if she simply wanted to stay in the United States.)
6. The only reason that she would sign a prenuptial agreement was so that she could stay in the United States. (There were plenty of men in her engineering classes that did not have enough assets to need a prenuptial agreement.)
7. I married a Chinese woman to evade "feminism". (Nope, I married her because she said "yes," even though there would be a prenup.)
8. I was among too many men that were marrying foreign women and this was "unfair" to American women.  It was not clearly expressed, but it seemed to be some sort of supply/demand argument.  (This is absurd. First, I am not responsible for what other men do. Second, nothing stops American women from marrying foreign men. Interestingly, my argument was rejected  because it was  "far easier for American men to attract foreign brides than for American women to attract foreign grooms." Apparently, American men have a good reputation among foreign women and American women have a bad reputation among foreign men? No evidence was supplied that this was true.  But, even if true, I am not responsible for this reputation difference.) 

I emphasize again that only a small fraction of women were outright hostile.

Among the hostile woman, the verbal attacks almost never ceased;  the arguments just kept shifting.  They were determined to label almost anything  "unfair" and a result of a "power inequality."  First,  I was exercising a power inequality because of an assumed salary difference.  Second, when the first assumption turned out to be wrong, then I was exercising a power inequality because of citizenship issues. Third, when the second assumption turned out to be wrong, then there was a power inequality because of  "white male privilege."

Two things really seemed to irk these women. First, they were angry that because of good planning (a prenuptial contract and a wife with comparable salary) my wife got no post-divorce goodies. She got none of my premarital assets, she got no alimony, and she got no child support. In fact, at divorce time, she was making slightly more salary than I was.  It was somehow unfair that I had successfully protected my premarital and post-marital assets.  Second, they seemed angry that I had married an attractive, slender, younger woman from Shanghai instead of an American woman my "own age."  It seemed not to matter that the American women my age would not sign a prenuptial contract and were past their most fertile period anyway making children less probable. In fact, this further irked some of the hostile women.

I  do not know how many of these hostile woman had been married and what their financial circumstances had been. It is a good guess though, that had I married one of these hostile women, I would have been financially skewered in divorce because they would not have had a salary commensurate with mine.   Instead of picking up the skills and language of science and engineering like my Chinese wife, these hostile women seemed to have picked up the language (and skills?) from the lunatic fringe of the women's movement.  I wonder what fraction of these hostile women spent time in women's studies?

Beggar Psychology and Family Law Psychology

Beggar Psychology and Family Law Psychology 

There are some important differences, but at one level, one can get a fairly good idea of the psychological aspects of the marriage entitlement ideology by considering a man begging on the street.  Suppose that every day for 365 days,  man A passes the beggar and gives him nothing and man B passes the beggar and gives him one dollar.  On day 366 both man A and man B pass the beggar without giving him anything. It is an extremely good bet that the beggar is angry at man B and not man A. Despite the beggar having his standard of living improved for 365 days by man B, the beggar gives man B little appreciation. Instead, he is angry at man B because the beggar's standard of living drops by one dollar when man B stops giving.  In the beggar's view, man B is responsible for a drop in the beggar's standard of living.  

The family law psychology is eerily similar to the beggar psychology.  Consider man A and man B, both of which have substantially higher incomes than a woman.  Suppose that man A will not marry a woman because he does not want to share his higher income with her. Suppose that man B is willing to share his higher income with her and he marries her. Every day that the marriage endures,  man B is increasing her standard of living.  Despite the woman having her standard of living improved during the marriage, the woman gives man B little appreciation.  If a divorce ensues, the woman's standard of living would decrease dramatically if man B no longer shares his higher income.  In the law's view,  man B is responsible for a drop in the woman's standard of living.  But, whereas the beggar cannot force man B to continue supporting the beggar's standard of living, the law can force man B to continue supporting the woman's standard of living.  If, even after the law's intervention,  the woman perceives that her standard of living has decreased, it is because not enough is being transferred from man B to her.

It may take a bit longer to find financially successful women, but currently there are plenty of them. Biologically, men can afford to be patient. Keep beggar psychology in mind and avoid good deeds per:

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/marriage--no-good-deed-goes-unpunished.html

Marriage Entitlement Ideology - No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

 Marriage Entitlement Ideology - No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Men would be well-advised to take women's admonition "not to think with your dick" very seriously.

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/dont-think-with-your-dick-valuable.html

Do not value women solely for their youth and beauty.  The important things are the things that endure. Youth and beauty are waning assets. Think also about important things that endure. Don't marry solely for waning assets.  Shared values,  the ability and inclination to communicate rationally, and the willingness to compromise are going to be more important for the long term.

Apparently, women need to be protected from "power inequalities" in marriage and their "bounded rationality." ( Prenuptial Agreements and the Presumption of Free Choice: Issues of Power in Theory and Practice, by Sharon Thompson page 167 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309847645_Prenuptial_Agreements_and_the_Presumption_of_Free_Choice_Issues_of_Power_in_Theory_and_Practice) The most logical way for women to protect themselves from "power inequalities" and their irrational behavior would be for the women not to marry men that had such unequal power.  The trouble is that women seem to prefer men with high status, income, wealth, and power.  Attorneys try to protect these women from their "bounded rationality," by making it uncertain that a prenuptial contract will be binding.  This protection, of course, comes at the expense of successful men. Thus, successful men should protect these irrational women from "power inequalities" by not marrying them. (That is, don't think with your dick.)

Because of "marriage entitlements," if a financially successful man does not marry a similarly financially successful woman, he should beware the mantra "no good deed goes unpunished."  As will be explained below, the more good deeds a successful man does, the more the law will punish him. For simplicity, and because she gets her entitlement whether she has his children or not, assume that the marriage endures for ten years or so and that there are no children.

Consider three different options for a financially successful man (there are other options not listed):

Case A:  Similar Financial Status 

If a financially successful man marries a similarly financially successful woman, he is relatively safe from legalized plunder. Basically, there is no net transfer of marital wealth between the spouses during the marriage or in a divorce. A high standard of living is possible, along with high savings and investment, when both spouses have comparably high incomes.

Case B:  Dissimilar Financial Status with a Prenuptial Agreement

If a financially successful man does not marry a similarly financially successful woman, there will be a net transfer of wealth from the husband to the wife during the marriage. The married man sacrifices the higher standard of living and the higher savings and investment that he would have had if he had stayed single.  Conversely, the married woman gets both a higher standard of living along with higher savings and investment than she would have had  if she had stayed single. In a divorce, there are lower savings and investment in case B than case A.  Assume the savings and investments are split evenly between the spouses. For the husband, compared to staying single, after divorce he has lower savings and investment. For the wife, compared to staying single, after divorce she has higher savings and investment.

What does the prenup do for him?  A prenuptial agreement can help minimize (hopefully to zero) any transfer of income and/or wealth after divorce.   

Case C:  Dissimilar Financial Status without a Prenuptial Agreement

Case C is almost the same during the marriage as Case B.  That is, if a financially successful man does not marry a similarly financially successful woman, there will be a net transfer of wealth from the husband to the wife during the marriage. The married man sacrifices the higher standard of living and the higher savings and investment that he would have had if he had stayed single.  Conversely, the married woman gets both a higher standard of living along with higher savings and investment than she would have had  if she had stayed single. In a divorce, there are lower savings and investment in case C than case A.  Assume the savings and investments are split evenly between the spouses.  For the husband, compared to staying single, after divorce he has lower savings and investment. For the wife, compared to staying single, after divorce she has higher savings and investment.

The big difference between case C and case B is that the woman expects a  transfer of income and/or wealth to her even after divorce. 

If a woman will not even communicate and negotiate what she needs in a prenuptial agreement, how can one expect good communication and compromise in the marriage?  An unwillingness to negotiate and a "take it or leave it" ultimatum on getting married without a prenuptial agreement is a power play that shows total disregard for the man's concerns.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

In case A,  the man is not making any financial sacrifices due to marriage and thus the law sees no "good deed" and thus will not even attempt to punish him in a divorce.   Not only that, but women generally do not see the man in a bad light.

In case B,  the man is making a financial sacrifice due to marriage and thus the law sees a "good deed" and will attempt to punish him to the extent that the prenuptial agreement can be circumvented.  The law, and women generally, will give the man no credit for the financial sacrifice he made for the marriage.  There is a negative sentiment that he is not a good guy because he should have simply trusted her and not negotiated a prenuptial agreement.  Instead, women will complain about "power inequalities" and being "forced" to sign a prenup that attempts to stop a  transfer of income and/or wealth after divorce.

In case C, the man is making a financial sacrifice due to marriage and thus the law sees a "good deed" that needs to be punished.  Furthermore, because he trusted both his wife and the family law system, the law sees more good deeds that the man has done and will punish the man even more harshly than in case B.  Because he trusted family law, family law will force him to provide her a marital lifestyle entitlement and will attempt to go after even premarital assets in any way possible to satisfy her unmet "needs."

  

Don't Think With Your Dick - A Valuable Marriage Insight

Don't Think With Your Dick - A Valuable Marriage Insight

When I was in college I heard numerous women complain that "men think with their dicks."  This expression was sometimes used simply to complain about men.  More ominously,  it was  also used to justify either indifference or often outright glee that a man had "been taken to the cleaners" by a wife that the speakers thought was not appropriate for the man.  There was absolutely no sympathy for the man; indeed, it was his fault.  Something like: " If he hadn't been thinking with his dick, he would have known she was a gold digger;  why else would she have married him?"  (The most common reasons for "inappropriate" wives seemed to be either a much younger woman than the man or perhaps he was ugly whereas she was pretty. My assessment was the speakers considered the wife  inappropriate because she was "out of his league".  Therefore, she had to be a gold digger.)

There were four things I considered from this:

1.  The law encourages gold-digging because it (sometimes) compensates women simply for "marrying well."

2.  Many women thought that there was nothing wrong with the law compensating women that they claimed were gold diggers, even if the sole reason for a large compensation was that they had "married well."

3.  Many women did not consider the man to be the victim of a gold digger, instead they blamed the man for his stupidity and "thinking with his dick."

4. He had simply trusted her and given her "the benefit of the doubt," even though a prenuptial negotiation could have resolved much of the doubt.  He was, in fact, thinking with his dick. Had he been thinking with his brain he would have realized that the benefit of the doubt should be given when the doubt cannot be removed, not instead of removing the doubt.  A true gold digger is unlikely to sign a prenuptial contract.


After these comments from women about men deserving what they get when they "think with their dicks", I was much more conscious that a man needed to be very careful not to let love cloud his judgment.   Marriage is often the most dangerous financial action that successful men ever take.  There is a great deal of value to the admonition not to "think with your dick."  Men should think with their brain and not marry women that are financially dangerous to them.

An American's perspective on "feminist relational contract theory."

From Russell Sandberg's comment on the book "Prenuptial Agreements and the Presumption of Free Choice: Issues of Power in Theory and Practice"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309847645_Prenuptial_Agreements_and_the_Presumption_of_Free_Choice_Issues_of_Power_in_Theory_and_Practice

  "... And to cap it all, the book creates, develops and advocates a new approach: ‘Feminist Relational Contract Theory’. ..."

 Let me give an American's perspective on "feminist relational contract theory." Although "feminist relational contract theory" may sound new, it is really just government tyranny to take away the liberty of negotiating meaningful contracts.

 "Feminist relational contract theory" is basically gibberish for using government tyranny to ensure that nobody can know what a contract means at the time it is signed. If a prenup is signed as a "feminist relational contract," does it mean anything except that the government, ex post facto, is going to determine what it means? If it does mean something, why shouldn't the prenup specify what it does mean?

 Americans typically take a dim view of ex post facto laws, viewing them as unfair, unjust, and tyrannical. Maybe Americans are less tolerant of government tyranny after having experienced so much of it under English rule that a revolution was necessary to free America from English tyranny.