I can't imagine how this would work, Calamity... could you explain how one could live this way?
If your husband owned the mansion (and let you live in it) wouldn't this cause some friction. Would you get to put your Sears couch next to his $10,000 Victorian antiques?
Would you be OK with not being able to drive the Ferrari just because he never drove the Civic?
I couldn't live in a married where all of the assets belonged to my spouse-- and I wouldn't want to live where I owned all the assets either.
Equality is a very important part of a healthy marriage.
Two people on different social levels can get married... but this is only because financial assets are only one of the many assets one brings to a marriage.
I can not imagine living in a marriage where the assets (both financial and other) weren't common property that were shared freely.
Is there any difference between being married, and being roommates who have sex?
If you are are not going to join together to become one-- then what is the point of marriage?
ebrown, you're old-fashioned and naive, sorry. If the wealth between
two partners is distributed so unevenly, you can rest assured that the
wealthy part will protect her/himself. In todays age where almost half
of the marriages end up in divorce, you'd be a fool not to.
When I first got married, we both had squad, so that was easy, and
anything accumulated during marriage is anyways 50/50 - there is no
problem. However the assets someone has prior to marriage, are hers
or his, if she/he chooses to keep it that way.
You enter a relationship strictly for physical and emotional reasons,
why should that change just because the assets are differently defined?
The couple whose assets are separate might be just as loving and
happy as you are in your conventional marriage. Just because you
can't see it, doesn't mean it's not doable - successfully doable.