Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or you can say what my husband told me when we first got married, "you need to sign this prenup for YOUR protection" Biggest BS statement I have ever heard But hey, maybe she will buy it!
On top of the fact that he was a foreigner, lost his job and would have had to go back to his country of origin. We married in 4 days. He put the prenup in front of me the night before the we got married. The prenup was downloaded off the internet and it is TOTALLY one sided (to his favor). I signed it because I wanted to marry him and loved him. Didn't give a rats about what he had (which isn't much to begin with!!!)
And it shouldn't be a surprise that I don't contribute to the payments of the home we bought together (it was his down payment so that would never be mine) because according to this ridiculous prenup, I wouldn't get a dime of this house if we divorced. Sure, it makes for a great marriage...
I keep hoarding money in a secret bank account because "you never know" and I don't want to me left in the cold. He only created resentment and secrecy for me. He doesn't trust me and I don't trust him. Lovely!!!
I think it's reasonable if it's old, family money you're protecting. Anyone who is middle class or lower & wants a prenup is full of themselves. I see such people as materialistic & overly concerned with money to the point where it comes before trust in their relationships. A relationship with no foundation of basic trust is NOT one I would want. It's not about the pre-nup on its own - it's about their view of money that is a turn-off in itself. The legal marriage protects assets acquired beforehand anyway.
But then, I do believe marriage is about more than love; it's also about joining two lives, and that is inevitably going to include finances. It seems to me, a pre-nup is a resistance to join in this aspect. In other aspects of marriage, this attitude would be seen as a power-play & not healthy. I mean, imagine this attitude in the bedroom, with one spouse feeling they "bring more" because they are better looking & so they feel entitled to withhold somehow.
In the case of owning a house prior to marrying, if you live in that house while married, then odds are she will contribute financially towards that house as some point. Whether its maintenance or interior alterations or maybe even helping with the mortgage (if it's not paid off), etc. If the pre-nup takes into consideration these possibilities, then maybe it is a protection for both, but more often than not it seems like one person being paranoid about their precious money.
I disagree with you here. It's really not hypocritical to not want to sign one. Marriage is very much about the binding of finances. It's really a huge part of marriage. That might not sound romantic, but I'm just speaking from experience here. Finances are deeply woven into the marriage contract and that has been the case historically. By asking for a prenup it's asking to remove a pretty big part of the marriage concept. Why people want to marry any way is beyond me. It's definitely psycho-socially stratified.
Initially, the was the intent and it worked. But, times have certainly changed. It makes more sense not to legally marry in the first place if a person doesn't want to bind finances.
Hi Braunwyn,
I guess I'll just agree to disagree about the hypocrisy thing. I see a marriage licence as a contract, and a prenup as a contract. If one will sign one happily and be upset about the other, that's hypocrisy.
In regards to marriage licenses, I based my low opinions on the origination of these licenses in the mid-1800s to regulate or prevent interracial marriages. It was more about miscegenation than finances, based on what I've read.
Traditional marriage held too many inequalities in the opposite (male) direction for me to hold it up as a good standard. It has swung in the low-earner direction, usually female so some type of agreement needs to be drawn up to equalize things. I'm not of those who says "you get nothing", I'm actually pretty fair.
However, I don't believe most of our current society goes into marriage clearly thinking about merging finances. We're all sold on the concept based solely on love yet people accept an unromantic government license that automatically merges finances. That's a bad idea for a financially incompatible couple with the state of today's divorce laws.
Regardless, my position on ceremonies without marriage licenses is a very good weeding out tool for those who claim to be in it solely for love but aren't.
I think it's reasonable if it's old, family money you're protecting. Anyone who is middle class or lower & wants a prenup is full of themselves. .
I see this point raised a low in pre-nup discussions, but it doesn't make sense past the surface. If someone isn't wealthy, a hit to half of their assets plus alimony payments is going to hurt them more than it would hurt a wealthy person.
This.
The idea of marriage has evolved. As long as family courts refuse to evolve, you need to have some insurance in a prenup. You get insurance for the car you love, the roof that is over your head. I don't think this is any different. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Exactly. Current divorce / family court policies are incompatible with the idea of traditional marriage. One needs insurance, just as they would insure the things they love, like children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crackpot
People play the love trap too to get into a marriage when someone does have assets and they have nothing, like a con artist waiting for the moment to rob them blind. Usually, a big red flag is when someone explodes into a "YOU DONT LOVE ME!" tantrum and it gives them away. And funny enough it's usually the people who don't have anything to lose or bring into the relationship (except baggage, haha.)
We don't even need to bring scammers into the conversation. Even someone who is completely sincere can "get bored" or "fall out of love" and then destroy the person who didn't want to get divorced. That's a problem that needs to be remedied. If you want to break up the family for no real reason, you should leave with nothing but what you put into it.
I guess I'll just agree to disagree about the hypocrisy thing. I see a marriage licence as a contract, and a prenup as a contract. If one will sign one happily and be upset about the other, that's hypocrisy.
I think our disagreement stems from how we view marriage (differently). From my pov a core part of marriage is to build a life, which in large part means to build wealth. It provides a security for the individuals, the family they create, and their future. So, with that in mind, a prenup is a contract to void significant aspects of the intial contract. That's nonsensical in my mind, so I don't see hypocrisy is not wanting a prenup.
Quote:
In regards to marriage licenses, I based my low opinions on the origination of these licenses in the mid-1800s to regulate or prevent interracial marriages. It was more about miscegenation than finances, based on what I've read.
My point wasn't so much about licenses per se, but the construct of marriage historically, which as I understand it was to build wealth and provide security for the family.
Quote:
Traditional marriage held too many inequalities in the opposite (male) direction for me to hold it up as a good standard. It has swung in the low-earner direction, usually female so some type of agreement needs to be drawn up to equalize things. I'm not of those who says "you get nothing", I'm actually pretty fair.
However, I don't believe most of our current society goes into marriage clearly thinking about merging finances. We're all sold on the concept based solely on love yet people accept an unromantic government license that automatically merges finances. That's a bad idea for a financially incompatible couple with the state of today's divorce laws.
To the best of my knowledge the love aspect is relatively knew. I'm thinking of arranged marriages, which for many cultures were the norm. Hopefully, love manifests, but there is no reason to legally marry if it's only about romantic love. It's more than that. Frankly, I don't see how folk don't recognize that the contract is about a financial responsibility.
Quote:
Regardless, my position on ceremonies without marriage licenses is a very good weeding out tool for those who claim to be in it solely for love but aren't.
Cohabitation is probably a far better option for many. And for religious folk, a church oriented binding. I did a hand fasting ceremony with an ex of mine. It included a time limit as well. What is the point of legally marrying if not for the financial responsibility?
Or you can say what my husband told me when we first got married, "you need to sign this prenup for YOUR protection" Biggest BS statement I have ever heard But hey, maybe she will buy it!
On top of the fact that he was a foreigner, lost his job and would have had to go back to his country of origin. We married in 4 days. He put the prenup in front of me the night before the we got married. The prenup was downloaded off the internet and it is TOTALLY one sided (to his favor). I signed it because I wanted to marry him and loved him. Didn't give a rats about what he had (which isn't much to begin with!!!)
And it shouldn't be a surprise that I don't contribute to the payments of the home we bought together (it was his down payment so that would never be mine) because according to this ridiculous prenup, I wouldn't get a dime of this house if we divorced. Sure, it makes for a great marriage...
I keep hoarding money in a secret bank account because "you never know" and I don't want to me left in the cold. He only created resentment and secrecy for me. He doesn't trust me and I don't trust him. Lovely!!!
That prenup almost certainly isn't valid because mutual full disclosure did not occur, and more importantly, you weren't given time or opportunity to seek legal representation before signing. If you do break up, you can easily contest it. And in a divorce, you'll have to disclose your secret stash, unless you lie to the court.
So, we are talking about marriage, and I have been told by my family to get a prenup. This is her second marriage, my first. She has little to no assets. I have a home and other assets I am told to protect. This, I have no idea how to bring up nor how she'll respond... Ideas? Suggestions??
Just ask her how she feels about it..I would never marry a man who told me to sign a prenup...Im not greedy I would not take something that was not rightfully mine. Just because I dont sign a prenup doesnt mean I'll take him to the cleaners.
I think our disagreement stems from how we view marriage (differently). From my pov a core part of marriage is to build a life, which in large part means to build wealth. It provides a security for the individuals, the family they create, and their future. So, with that in mind, a prenup is a contract to void significant aspects of the intial contract. That's nonsensical in my mind, so I don't see hypocrisy is not wanting a prenup.
I understand your viewpoint. For me, marriage would be strictly about the relationship. I'm fine with others seeing it as building wealth together. I've already built enough on my own and want the balance to be for my child/children. Easily obtainable divorce potentially endangers that goal.
We'll probably never agree on the hypocrisy point, and that's fine too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
My point wasn't so much about licenses per se, but the construct of marriage historically, which as I understand it was to build wealth and provide security for the family.
That's fine. Most of my points are tied to the license itself. For most of history the license wasn't needed to achieve this goal. In all honesty, the license and pre-nups aren't really the problem. The divorce laws are the problem. I've read too many one-sided divorce decrees in "no fault" situations to trust that the courts will do the right thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
To the best of my knowledge the love aspect is relatively knew. I'm thinking of arranged marriages, which for many cultures were the norm. Hopefully, love manifests, but there is no reason to legally marry if it's only about romantic love. It's more than that. Frankly, I don't see how folk don't recognize that the contract is about a financial responsibility.
Unfortunately, to answer this I have to get into anecdote and stereotype mode.
I've asked many guys about their thoughts on the license and they just do it because it's what the government requires. There's no thought about it past the "it makes it legal" mindset. This is pretty uniform among the guys I've asked.
The women friends I've asked either share the same opinion as the guys above, or they are very clear about the security aspect of a marriage license. I've met many who would not marry a guy who would have a ceremony but not sign the license. Women I've dated didn't seem to mind, but I think that's because they know what kind of person I am. (Or they were just going along with my opinion, who really knows, haha)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Cohabitation is probably a far better option for many. And for religious folk, a church oriented binding. I did a hand fasting ceremony with an ex of mine. It included a time limit as well. What is the point of legally marrying if not for the financial responsibility?
I agree with all of this. I like your hand fasting ceremony with a time limit, I'll look that up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But hey, maybe she will buy it!
Funny ironic...good for you!
