Economically empowered women means less marriages.

[skaternum]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

What does popular ‘culture myths’ have to do with a prenup being impenetrable - or not? Too funny. That said, what you describe is extremely porous i.e. to keep everything separate after marriage due to the fact you wrote a document to do so. It calls into question unconscionability immediately (not to mention several other factors). The goal of most prenups is simply to protect the assets acquired prior to the marriage; it’s a wise move for ‘economically empowered women’ and men who come into the marriage with considerable assets and is much more difficult to penetrate than any agreement relative to assets acquired during the marriage without at least a somewhat equitable split. Keep in mind marriage is the legally recognized union of two people as partners. If that’s not what you want, don’t get married.

Pish. There are plenty of pre-nups that specify separate finances, mine included. YOU don't think that's a legit way to have a marriage, but your opinion doesn't really matter to those of us who do. My late DH and I had separate finances (legally separate, not just different bank accounts), and it served us well until he died. My new DH and I have separate finances. It's about what we as a couple feel is fair. Not really about what you think.

And as for that "legally recognized union of two people as partners" thing. That is true. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is nothing more than a contract. And people who enter into a contract are entitled to draft that up any way they want. The state has a default contract (i.e., marital property laws), but with a pre-nup you can legally establish your own legal contract with whatever financial structure you want (within the confines of the law). So yep, it's a union of 2 partners, with a contract. We happen to like our contract.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by skaternum

Pish. There are plenty of pre-nups that specify separate finances, mine included. YOU don't think that's a legit way to have a marriage, but your opinion doesn't really matter to those of us who do. My late DH and I had separate finances (legally separate, not just different bank accounts), and it served us well until he died. My new DH and I have separate finances. It's about what we as a couple feel is fair. Not really about what you think.

And as for that "legally recognized union of two people as partners" thing. That is true. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is nothing more than a contract. And people who enter into a contract are entitled to draft that up any way they want. The state has a default contract (i.e., marital property laws), but with a pre-nup you can legally establish your own legal contract with whatever financial structure you want (within the confines of the law). So yep, it's a union of 2 partners, with a contract. We happen to like our contract.

It’s not about ‘fair’ in your eyes, or ‘anything you want’, in order to be legally binding (and impenetrable) - it must be found to be legally conscionable (among other things); and if it pertains to any assets acquired after marriage as a couple, that’s going to be more difficult to uphold. The majority of prenups address individual assets prior to the marriage (or individual gifts and inheritances) - which is definitely a prudent thing for any economically empowered woman (or man) to do.

That said, if you don’t want to be legally joined as a partnership, don’t get married. My point is certain prenups are permeable, especially those beyond premarital assets which attempt to keep separate that what is considered joined property in the eyes of the law. Impossible? No, but a good lawyer is going to poke holes easier by way of conscionability - especially if the marriage is long-lasting and/or how evenly the lines are drawn. Protecting pre-marital assets, however, is a prudent move for economically empowered women (or men); it doesn’t have to mean less marriage (per the thread) - just smarter options.