Separate property in marriage?

[GiftOfGod]

Having read this whole thread I can only congratulate the women who decided to never go on another date with the OP again. Sounds like their guardian angels saved them from a miserable relationship. A man who is mean with money is probably just mean  and  if a man sounds like a woman hater he probably is. RUN away girls.

How exactly is it "mean with money"? It can't be any more "mean" than your comment.

[andy]

Having read this whole thread I can only congratulate the women who decided to never go on another date with the OP again. Sounds like their guardian angels saved them from a miserable relationship. A man who is mean with money is probably just mean  and  if a man sounds like a woman hater he probably is. RUN away girls.

How exactly is it "mean with money"? It can't be any more "mean" than your comment.

You probably need to talk to the confessor about it. Seriously. Rushing to a judgment of a potential girlfriend who is potential person you want to love who is a potential fiancé who is a potential wife is actually a sin. Please see attached page from the SSPX missal:

[GiftOfGod]

Having read this whole thread I can only congratulate the women who decided to never go on another date with the OP again. Sounds like their guardian angels saved them from a miserable relationship. A man who is mean with money is probably just mean  and  if a man sounds like a woman hater he probably is. RUN away girls.

How exactly is it "mean with money"? It can't be any more "mean" than your comment.

You probably need to talk to the confessor about it. Seriously. Rushing to a judgment of a potential girlfriend who is potential person you want to love who is a potential fiancé who is a potential wife is actually a sin. Please see attached page from the SSPX missal:

Why are you posting this about me and not the others in the thread who have judged rashly or falsely accused?

[andy]

Why are you posting this about me and not the others in the thread who have judged rashly or falsely accused?

Because YOU asked for a help.

And why I would be defending you from those bad people here who accuse you of some heinous acts?

Please mention that to a girl you going to date next, that you failed to guard yourself in this thread. That might be way more important got her that some stupid real estate.

[Graham]

Why is it that in 12 pages nobody has dug into or tried to credibly dispute Gift's contention that several traditional Catholic states of the past allowed or condoned this kind of arrangement? Since there seems to be no direct teaching against it, or at least none that anyone can discover, that becomes the crux of the argument. I'm not invested one way or the other, but almost as a matter of taste i would like to see a better standard of argument here.

[Graham]

Here, I didn't read this very carefully, but looks like Gift is correct about old Spanish law right down to the particulars:

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7863&context=penn_law_review

[GiftOfGod]

Why are you posting this about me and not the others in the thread who have judged rashly or falsely accused?

Because YOU asked for a help.

And why I would be defending you from those bad people here who accuse you of some heinous acts?

Please mention that to a girl you going to date next, that you failed to guard yourself in this thread. That might be way more important got her that some stupid real estate.

Your posts are nonsensical. Kindly buzz off.

Why is it that in 12 pages nobody has dug into or tried to credibly dispute Gift's contention that several traditional Catholic states of the past allowed or condoned this kind of arrangement? Since there seems to be no direct teaching against it, or at least none that anyone can discover, that becomes the crux of the argument. I'm not invested one way or the other, but almost as a matter of taste i would like to see a better standard of argument here.

No direct teaching against it? There hasn't even been a peep against it! In the English language of course but being that tens of millions of English-speaking Catholics have been subject to this legal concept for over 100 years, one would think that if there was a problem with it, there would be even the slightest mention of it in English.

[diaduit]

Why is it that in 12 pages nobody has dug into or tried to credibly dispute Gift's contention that several traditional Catholic states of the past allowed or condoned this kind of arrangement? Since there seems to be no direct teaching against it, or at least none that anyone can discover, that becomes the crux of the argument. I'm not invested one way or the other, but almost as a matter of taste i would like to see a better standard of argument here.

Because Gog wants to get married I assume, and with his attitude he ain't ever going to get a wife and I suspect but obviously I could be wrong, his motivation for keeping his property separate is based on meanness i.e. tightwad (as seen on this thread and a hint of it on another) more than actual Church teachings.
 I have seen Gog respond very harshly and abruptly in other threads that was cutting way more than necessary so he needn't do the damsel in distress victim here.  TBH I was first to post a harsh comment against him so I will apologise for that but equally Gog could reign in his acidity too.  If I could rewind time I would bite my lip as I should have but still in charity advise him to rethink his position if he wants a wife.  The men on this forum can say they wouldn't be against his attitude if he was a possible spouse for their daughters all they like but in the real life, mamma would be telling the daughter to tread very carefully and maybe rethink her choice on her future spouse.  Its why God gave us intuition.

Its a pity you have this attitude towards your property because otherwise you have other attributes that make a fine husband and father.

[queen.saints]

Changing yourself and your beliefs just in order to find a spouse is a big mistake. If there is something fundamentally wrong with you, you should try to change on principle. If there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the way you are or what you believe, it’s simply off-putting to the majority of potential spouses, then all the better. There are billions of potential spouses out there and you need to narrow things down. You need to both attract the 1 right person and repulse the 99 wrong ones.

[Philip G.]

Changing yourself and your beliefs just in order to find a spouse is a big mistake. If there is something fundamentally wrong with you, you should try to change on principle. If there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the way you are or what you believe, it’s simply off-putting to the majority of potential spouses, then all the better. There are billions of potential spouses out there and you need to narrow things down. You need to both attract the 1 right person and repulse the 99 wrong ones.

Don't give him hope.  He will not find the one.

[andy]

Why are you posting this about me and not the others in the thread who have judged rashly or falsely accused?

Because YOU asked for a help.

And why I would be defending you from those bad people here who accuse you of some heinous acts?

Please mention that to a girl you going to date next, that you failed to guard yourself in this thread. That might be way more important got her that some stupid real estate.

Your posts are nonsensical. Kindly buzz off.

I have no idea what are your true intentions, but your own words show absurdity of your thinking. All I do is just quote them in correct context.

And I WILL NOT kindly buzz off. The matrimony is not your private affair. It is part of public life the church. The church actually does cross examine a couple with the public via the office of banns. At least in the past, to make sure that couple who is to be married is trustworthy and can lead Catholic life and not bring scandal inside of the church.

[andy]

Why is it that in 12 pages nobody has dug into or tried to credibly dispute Gift's contention that several traditional Catholic states of the past allowed or condoned this kind of arrangement? Since there seems to be no direct teaching against it, or at least none that anyone can discover, that becomes the crux of the argument. I'm not invested one way or the other, but almost as a matter of taste i would like to see a better standard of argument here.

This is not an ethics issue but the character problem.  And sometimes it takes time and space to uncover essential details of such (e.g. 12 pages in this case).

Now, let's assume that GiftofGod gets this way and somehow manages to separate his property (via a trust or some LLC or whatever). And his wife somehow absolutely trusts him at that point and initially does not notice that there is an issue.

But the true motivation, it is a fear of a divorce as admitted, will surface sooner or later. As James says in his book, women have 10x better social awareness and eventually instinctively see things through. And she will overreact, will feel cheated, etc. But the fear here is the worse ingredient and it will be taken advantage of like a goof throw in the olympic judo fight. Women are masters in psychological judo.

[Graham]

How can his wish to follow a marriage arrangement traditional to Catholic Spain and other Catholic countries of the civil law tradition be proof of a un-Catholic character flaw?

This is far from cogent argumentation, it just seems to be 12 pages of prejudice and leaping to judgement, restated over and over in barely different and increasingly boring ways. The fact that nobody in all this time made a bare effort to determine whether Gift was correct about old Spanish law, which took all of 5 minutes of googling to verify, says a great deal.

[GiftOfGod]

Now, let's assume that GiftofGod gets this way and somehow manages to separate his property (via a trust or some LLC or whatever). And his wife somehow absolutely trusts him at that point and initially does not notice that there is an issue.

But the true motivation, it is a fear of a divorce as admitted, will surface sooner or later. As James says in his book, women have 10x better social awareness and eventually instinctively see things through. And she will overreact, will feel cheated, etc.

This is why I wouldn't hide it and instead, I am open with it. Did you even read the thread?

My the Original Post in this thread:

I thought about letting women assume that it would become community property until we get married but that wouldn't be honest.

[andy]

This is why I wouldn't hide it and instead, I am open with it. Did you even read the thread?

Yes. I did read this thread twice as a matter of fact. And yes, I assumed that she would be aware of your sole side property. And perhaps, as an aspiring wife who truly want to love her husband, she would not mind it initially just because she wanted to be a GOOD and GIVING wife. But sometimes it takes a lot of time to discover and COMPREHEND some essential details and real intensions of other person, especially as initial love feeling is gone, rose colored glasses are cracked and we discover other people quite annoying shortcomings. It is inevitable. Questions start being asked. And in this case she realizes that your actions were FEAR driven. Then they tend to overthink, perhaps make things up and rush into conclusions. And domino blocks are falling.

I love motorcycle riding analogies. The biggest enemy preventing to truly enjoy riding bikes is the same FEAR of crashing and losing either health or live. Both riding motorcycles and being married is by definition risky. Bad things can happen. Usually, the fear is the worst advisor here and often leads to tragic consequences. Both women and bikes hate the fear of the pilot.

I am not criticizing you here. In fact, I am quite empathetic to your dilemma. You want to retain somehow a leader position. I am not judgmental towards you at all. But at the same time I cannot escape a conclusion that you seem to be confused how to get your point across.

I am not a layer, but if you WANT that sole property, just setup a trust or some kind of rental LLC who would be the owner (I am sure there are ways of doing so), make sure it goes to your wife in case you die before her and never bring it up. Not because you want to manage the potential divorce situation (fear driven) but because you WANT things be that way (strong will driven).

I am married for 25+ years and let me tell you, my wife totally hates if I hint any kind of fear or hesitation on my part managing my stuff. And I am totally grateful of that on her part, because she makes me stronger that way.