Hacker News Reader

Comment by gib444 | Hacker News Reader

UK is going the other way: they're consulting on giving non married couples rights.

https://www.setfords.co.uk/2026/09/01/new-rights-for-cohabit...

At the request of the family law lobby, naturally ...

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-fairer-end-to-...

"The very limited set of protections under the current law can leave cohabitants facing significant financial difficulties when relationships end, which disproportionately affects vulnerable groups such as women, and children..."

Women...so naturally vulnerable ?! In 2026?

View on HN

> Women...so naturally vulnerable ?! In 2026?

All else aside for a second... yes? Women are both physically and economically (primarily when they are stay at home moms) vulnerable. No, that doesn't mean I'm saying that no men are vulnerable at all but averaged out to a population it's clear.

Is this actually borne out by the data? According to a quick Google search, men make up 73% of Canadian homicide victims and 66% of the homeless population.

Averaged out to the population, it's not at all clear that women are physically and economically more vulnerable than men.

So the actual criteria is vulnerability, not sex or gender…

As indicated by the use of "such as" in the original quote, yes

Economically disadvantaged often through choice is not "vulnerable". It's "economically disadvantaged", at best.

And I don't make a habit of pointing out women's smaller stature to call them vulnerable?? Wtf

> Economically disadvantaged often through choice is not "vulnerable". It's "economically disadvantaged", at best.

It leaves them economically vulnerable. When 100% of the income is going into one person's bank account that means they have the opportunity for economic control over their partner. Their partner does not have savings of their own to speak of. No, healthy relationships do not work that way. But a lot of relationships do.

Also, it's often not "through choice". A lot of the time childcare is more expensive than one parent leaving their job. A lot of families can't afford an alternative.

Force a Prenup ratio equal to the assets they had at the exact point prior to marriage, or meeting each other, as default. Make shared custody also the default, unless one side is found guilty of abuse.

It's 2026, and women are starting to outearn men in some cities. Why make men the sole breadwinners of the family?

> Force a Prenup ratio equal to the assets they had at the exact point prior to marriage

Which would completely ignore the economic imbalance I was talking about, which occurs during the marriage.

> It's 2026, and women are starting to outearn men in some cities. Why make men the sole breadwinners of the family?

Like I said, making a parent a stay at home parent is simply economic reality for many, while the kids are young and childcare is expensive. There’s no reason why that has to be the woman but the data shows that the vast majority of the time it is.

> making a parent a stay at home parent is simply economic reality for many

The topic was couples/cohabitation/marriage, not child rearing. The concerns you raise would be equally applicable where the parents have decided they want absolutely nothing to do with each other. There is truth in what you are saying, but it is an entirely different topic. How to deal with the child is a negotiation that takes place around the child, not around a romantic relationship (or lack thereof).

In the romantic relationship, there is no realistic situation where one party ends up with all the money unless the other one willingly hands theirs over. But any of us can do that. I can willing give you all my money now just the same and there would be no good legal recourse if I decide it was a bad idea later. The only reason we have these ideas in the world of romance is due to the historical idea that women aren't capable of thinking for themselves.

There probably isn't much of an economic imbalance if the prenup ratio was based on when both were single.

Even if one party earns less, I don't see how "vulnerable" that would make them if it was prior to meeting the other person.

How are you economically disadvantaged by having the choice to not get a job?

Pro-tip (for both unmarried men and women): You can sign a pre-nup even if you never have any nuptials. It turns out that people can choose to enter into a contract with each other at any time. There are plenty of reasons why people in a relationship may choose not to get legally married, but that does not mean you have to leave yourself at the mercy of the defaults in the law, which may or may not make sense for you.

This is especially important if there are children involved in your situation.

Pro tip: in Scotland (where the UK gov is taking inspiration from), that likely doesn't override rights in statutes

The law isn't simply a "default" in this matter that you can opt out of AIUI

Are you saying there's effectively a pre-commonlaw agreement mechanism available to curtail fallout from even just a drfault commonlaw arrangement?

People on HN are comically unaware of how frequently pre-nups get tossed out in court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com