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.
The way I see it, if you feel you need a prenup, you probably shouldn't marry that person.
That’s absolutely ludicrous. So you think first of all, people never change, relationships never change, and second that if two people are unhappy and want to separate, the best authority over how their own money should be distributed is the court system / government / someone who doesn’t know them. You realize your perspective is rooted completely in emotionalism and isn’t rational, right? Why would you ever in life not plan for a negative outcome just because you don’t want to think about it? I trust that the stock market overall is a great long term investment, but I’m not putting all of my money into it either.
If you actually love and trust someone, you shouldn’t be after their money, so you shouldn’t care about signing a document that’ll never matter since you’ll be together forever, right? Why would a guy with assets to protect get married to a girl if he didn’t hope it would work out forever? A prenup doesn’t mean he’s any less committed, it means he wants peace of mind that they’re both there for the right reasons. Only a gold digger would take issue with a prenup, frankly.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,629 posts, read 17,961,729 times
Reputation: 50652
Prenups are completely inappropriate, IMHO, in the case of a young couple who marries with the intention of starting a family and creating one or several children.
How does that even WORK? If you've got one parent making much more money than the other, do you decide, well, sorry, Dad can't come on this vacation because he can't pay his own way and actually, 2 of you kids can't either because I'm only paying half.
Also, when Jaymie needs expensive orthodontia, sorry, she'll just have to have crooked teeth because I'm only paying half and Mom over there can't afford to pay the other half. Sorry.
That's insanity.
And it's not marriage.
Prenups work in cases where one (usually the man) has made a lot of money and has now divorced his wife and would like to marry a woman much younger than himself and enjoy her for several years, and then dismiss her with out any responsibility, and his children don't have their inheritance taken by his new woman they aren't related to.
And she enjoys a very luxurious lifestyle for several years before she is dismissed with virtually nothing. It would be assumed she's been working and is capable of working this whole time.
Why is getting a prenup such a touchy topic for females?
Same reason it's a touchy subject for males, when it's the woman who brings more $$ to the table. The men feel like, if she doesn't have enough faith in them, to not lock up her money, then why get married?
I'm female and have been on both sides of that equation.
First husband had inherited about $300K after his mother (last living parent) died. I told him I'd consider anything reasonable and would want time to review it with an attorney, and that what I got out of the marriage if it ended should certainly depend on the length of the marriage and number of kids, if any. He never came up with one. $100K got put down on the house and we split the equity 60% him/40% me when we divorced. The rest of the money had been spent on Stuff for him (a new Camaro, a $6K sound system in 1984) and for his share of household expenses after he was unemployed the last 5 years of the marriage. (I worked FT the entire time and kept us afloat.)
Second DH ws a dear man with modest tastes and not much to his name except the equity in his house. He was 15 years older. We dated for almost 7 years and it was clear that he lived on less than he made and had no debt other than his mortgage. I made twice what he did and had about $350K in investments and another $200K or so in the equity in my house. A clear case for a prenup even though we were beyond childbearing age, right? We never had one. If the marriage had broken up I would have wanted to make sure he didn't end up in the street. We were pretty sure it wouldn't and it lasted till he died in late 2016.
I suppose that if I were crazy enough to remarry I'd want one, to protect the interests of my son and any children on his side.
My grandfather, BTW, married a gold digger. They had a prenup but it didn't stop her from renewing every CD in his name in her name as it renewed, sending $300/month to one daughter, and sweet-talking Grandpa into "upgrading" her already-generous diamond at their 5-year anniversary. Grandpa had almost nothing left when he died. My mother and her siblings were OK with that but were beginning to worry that they'd have to prop him up financially if he ran out.
The way I see it, if you feel you need a prenup, you probably shouldn't marry that person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanLB
That’s absolutely ludicrous. So you think first of all, people never change, relationships never change, and second that if two people are unhappy and want to separate, the best authority over how their own money should be distributed is the court system / government / someone who doesn’t know them. You realize your perspective is rooted completely in emotionalism and isn’t rational, right? Why would you ever in life not plan for a negative outcome just because you don’t want to think about it? I trust that the stock market overall is a great long term investment, but I’m not putting all of my money into it either.
If you actually love and trust someone, you shouldn’t be after their money, so you shouldn’t care about signing a document that’ll never matter since you’ll be together forever, right? Why would a guy with assets to protect get married to a girl if he didn’t hope it would work out forever? A prenup doesn’t mean he’s any less committed, it means he wants peace of mind that they’re both there for the right reasons. Only a gold digger would take issue with a prenup, frankly.
What if the "girl" is the breadwinner, or what if the guy doesn't believe in "together forever"?
Then she SHOULD really look into a prenup. Gender doesn’t matter when protecting assets.
I can tell you that I wouldn’t even think of remarrying unless i has a prenup. When my wife and I got married I signed a prenup. She had more assets and I completely understood her reasoning. I didn’t really care about her assets. I signed it.
Sometimes it doesn’t matter how much you love a person. Things don’t work out and you go your separate ways. I’m simply trying to protect what I work all these years. There is a point where a divorce can be financially catastrophic for a person.
I doubt I’ll ever actually remarry
Considering the high divorce rate in the country, it would seem wise for the breadwinner to protect himself in case the girl doesn't actually believe in "together forever, for better or worse," right? Does getting upset at prenup talk signal that a girl's true intentions are really about having the ability to rob a man on the way out? I can't see why someone would need the ability to charge a breakup fee if they were really serious about marriage.
I am not marrying someone who would not agree to a prenup.
The way I see it, if you feel you need a prenup, you probably shouldn't marry that person.
nonsense ...marriage is a contract ... if you can't come to terms on certain things when you are in love , wait and see what happens in hate .
we have a prenup ... but it was only because this is a 2nd marriage for both of us so the agreement is if the marriage did not work out we basically both leave with what we came with and will not try to milk the other person so to speak .. other wise every penny is left to each other . actually it was my wifes idea even though i had just finished going through that in my divorce from my 1st marriage .
I could swear that many famous couples had a prenup and the next thing you know, they're going to court to fight and the one person actually ends up with something. It made no sense to me. What was the point of a prenup? But if you say so. Like I said, I have absolutely no knowledge about the subject.
What if they're not "leading prenup attorneys" or any "good" lawyer? lol
Probably bc you can go to court for whatever reason you want.
And often settling is cheaper than fighting.
There isn't any good argument for not having a prenup when kids are NOT involved, though I can agree and understand it may not make sense if neither of you has much to protect and you're planning to have kids. Then, you end up with a much more complicated scenario. I don't have to think about that ever, so I choose not to think about it much even as a thought experiment, because I'd get into arguments I don't really care about. In practical terms, I mean to say that if the guy goes on to fabulous wealth, she stays home and takes care of the kids, I don't think it's reasonable or anything but laughable that she would be "entitled" to exorbitant sums of money ($20M, $50M, etc.) AND "spousal support" because she's "accustomed to" her $20,000/month lifestyle. That is where I draw the line at completely ludicrous and that's what the courts have done many times in the past. Nobody is "entitled" to some rich lifestyle just because they happened to get lucky enough to marry someone wealthy, sorry, that's a silly argument. It basically says, well, you stupidly married a poor guy, so you're entitled to $500/month spousal support for being an idiot, but this dumb bimbo over here was smart about one thing, she married a rich dude, so she needs $20,000/month.
It comes down to saying that the guy owes whatever he can afford to pay, which is illogical. It doesn't make sense. They could be equally great moms, but one mom gets a fortune, the other doesn't, just because the guy she was with could afford to pay more? I mean, come on! You could at least have a reasonable court decide, "Well she gave up a career in finance, and we estimate the average annual income of that career is $55,000/year, and she worked at home supporting the family for 9 years, so her expected income plus interest is X amount of money, which is what she's now entitled to over a period of Y years minus an expected contribution to the home finances." Not, "Well he has $100 million, so she's entitled to $25 million." Based on what? This isn't the IRS, it's not some sort of wealth tax here, otherwise you're strongly discouraging marriage as a completely illogical pursuit that has no benefits and only risks.
In a marriage without kids involved at all, though, it's easy and makes perfect sense to protect each person's assets and income. There is no good reason why both people can't or won't be working and making their own money, so unless the guy demands, "You shall stay home and work out 4 hours a day to maintain your Instagram body, but I shall give you a large amount of money," then what's the logic there? I paid for my GF's college education even, so if anything if we broke up after a year of marriage, she has still massively benefitted from our relationship even with a rock solid prenup. She still would have an education, no student loans, savings she has amassed beyond most her age because she didn't have to pay her own bills, etc. I'm certainly no fan of saying someone should be thrown out on the streets with nothing, but I'm also not a fan of the idea that marriage for me should be a win-lose scenario and for the girl should be a win-win. In other words, if we stayed together forever, it's a win for me. If we break up, it's a massive loss (both of the girl and of the money). If we stay together for her, it's a win as her expenses are taken care of, and if we break up, it's also a win for her because she gets a financial windfall. In game theory we'd call that a poor decision as the expected value is poor. It wouldn't make sense. Marriage is still a legal arrangement, it's not about love, our love is there whether we're married or not.
It's not my fault that in this country I have to hire a lawyer to draft a protective agreement to make sure I don't get screwed by obtaining some other socially expected legal document that I need for us to be formally recognized as "together." Literally for us, nothing changes by getting married. Not a single thing in our relationship will change. For other people, maybe that's when they first move in, or they're planning to have kids, or whatever else, but for us it's business as usual. The only way to maintain the status quo for me is to make sure my money isn't magically put at risk when it shouldn't be. We aren't having joint accounts or community assets, so the document is just establishing that nothing is changing. It's not some crazy thing, it's literally just maintaining what already should be maintained by default.
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.
