Gold Diggers

Post Reply New Topic

Considering those labels are intended to be slurs, society as a whole makes them up and just runs with it.

Jealous people who wish they had such an arrangement -- unattractive men and women, perhaps.  These labels are often applied to stay-at-home husbands of well-to-do wives, even if children and/or disabilities are involved.I would not mind at all -- to put up with a little contempt in exchange for a life of leisure would be ideal.You got it!

I wouldn't use such a label in that scenario because those people, obviously, aren't using their partners for the money."Boy-toy" has a different connotation than "gold-digger" IMO. If a person is a "boy-toy" or "kept man," the implication is that the situation was of the woman's choosing. (I wouldn't use the term "boy-toy." It's gross.) A "gold-digger" is someone who is actively and solely pursuing people on account of their money. This is not always transparent to the person who's being pursued. It can happen to either gender.

A “boy-toy” is usually a younger man whom a “cougar” would use to obtain sexual satisfaction.

There are times when the boy-toy is a “kept man.” Other times, he is not.

^That's the correct definition, and they are called toy boy's.

I am going to inherit millions so I need to be careful to avoid marrying a woman who is just after my money.I hope I never marry someone who just wants me for my familys money.Personally I prefer having detailed financial talks earlier in the relationship because I dont want to waste each others time.I plan having a legal Pre-nup, maybe a South Dakota Trust and a offshore account to protect me in the event of divorce.

Pre-nups aren't worth the paper they're written on.
They can still be challenged.

On the subject of gold dogging and the legendary pre-nup often going hand in hand, I think they are often worth the paper they're written on provided many caveats are stringently followed when mutually agreeing one.

The UK has no legislation recognising pre-nup's however judges have placed pre-nup's firmly into common law via past cases over the last ten years.

According to common law here, the pre-nup needs to be fair to both parties and independent legal advice (both partners need separate lawyers) needs to be sought. The rules are much more stringent than this but this is the basics of a pre-nup in a nutshell in the UK. If the criteria is adhered too the pre-nup is usually respected in court.

Pre-nup's might become increasingly common as deep rooted traditional views on marriage are thrown out the window due to advances in tech and science. Don't have to worry about paternity these days due to DNA testing for example. Everything can become much more black and white and quite literally written on paper now.

Are there no circumstances in which you would want to enter into a pre-nuptial agreement?

I guess there are no circumstances in which you would refuse to enter a pre-nuptial agreement, if asked, since they are not worth they paper they are printed on.

I've had two of them.

They cost more to prepare and later defend in court than if I hadn't bothered.

For example, one of the men quit his job and went bankrupt on purpose so he would get a free lawyer (pro bono).
Then he challenged the agreement saying he wasn't mentally sound when he signed it, because he was a drunk.
Then he was allowed by "constitutional rights" to challenge the terms based on our change in circumstance.
He had free counsel for all of this, paid by taxpayers (approx $60,000).

I had to pay full legal fees since I was working full-time as an honourable, taxpaying citizen and homeowner.

Last edited by IsabellaLinton on 18 Aug 2022, 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Were they over much though? When millions are involved and they're done impartially by lawyers, they can carry some clout in the UK and that's without any government legislation backing them up.

It would be your advice, then, that Texasmoneyman 300 who will inherit million of dollars should not ask for a pre-nuptial agreement.

Yes they were both protecting all of my assets including my children's home, my pension, and my other assets.

In the case of my marriage, the pre-nup was useless because I owned the house and assets prior to our marriage.
They were all legally mine anyway.
You only divide assets which are acquired after marriage.
Adding the prenup made things worse because it added about $100,000 in legal fees to have it debated.

With the second person it was pretty much the same.
The Cohabitation Agreement was a waste of money.
My assets were legally mine because we weren't married and he hadn't contributed / worked.
Again, it cost a bleeding fortune and took over a year in court just to have the thing dismissed.

Did you pay more in legal fees for preparing and defending the prenuptial than he would have received in a distribution of the marital assets, presumably all of which were yours, in a straight divorce with no pre-nuptial agreement?

If not, then it was worth it.

If he owns the assets prior to marriage it won't make a difference.
He can get one if he wants one.
Most people with considerable assets do.
I've never seen one hold much weight in court though.
EIther the person owned their assets anyway, or the other person gets 50/50 if they fight it.
I've never known an Agreement to be binding because it can always be challenged.

I don't know where you live but in California, for instance, a divorced spouse has a right to assets brought by the other spouse into a marriage. Just because you own a house in your name doesn't mean the spouse doesn't get a piece of the house upon divorce. There, the prenup would protect the assets brought into the marriage by each individual. This is what the fellow above was asking about. He is trying to protect his inherited wealth, not wealth created during the marriage.