Prenup thread spinoff: a poll by relationship experience

The pertinent discussion is found in this thread. But I really want to get a sense of how people’s answers broke down based on their own relationship experiences.

For the purpose of my poll definitions, “partnered” means romantically bound together legally, or that you would be (or would have been) bound together if the law allowed it. I realize that definition still allows for some leeway, but I’m trying to draw a distinction between people who were in serious relationships, but never took the next step of commitment.

Poll to follow.

I suppose I should clarify that the options that include “WOULD sign” includes people who already have done so.

It would not bother me if someone asked me to sign a pre-nup. I’ve seen too many marriages go to hell in a handbasket. I own my house and have a well-paying job with a pension and 401K and if I married someone who had no assets, there would definitely be a pre-nup involved.

If I married someone who was bringing the same amount of assets to the marriage, I’d probably let it slide.

Except for gender, I’m in about the same boat as Surly Chick.

Im not convinced number of relationships is the best thing to be measuring. I could see how someone married 6 times would be mad keen on them for instance, but wonder if the solution there might be missing the real problem.

I guess I more fit in the ‘might’ sign one, depending on the circumstances, so probably should have chosen the last category.


I am currently married or partnered for the first time, and I would NOT sign a prenup.

But my view isn’t based on my shortage of previous marriages, it’s based on the firmness of my intent about my marriage vows. I didn’t say “I do”[love you] or “I hope”[we’ll stay together]. I said “I will”. I meant it.

Since you raise it, I will say again that there are people who are just as intent as you are about their marriage vows who don’t feel the same way about prenups.

I acknowledge that you disagree.

I wonder if the actual vows they made were different. I can’t see any way to reconcile them.

I get that you don’t see the world that way; I really do. While I won’t claim this is a perfect analogy, I think it’s akin to two different individuals saying that the other person can’t possibly love his country because he subscribes to a different political philosophy. People can be equally committed to a cause or a belief without sharing the same approach or logic.

Telling those of us on the other side of this issue that you can’t make sense of our stance is one thing. Saying we can’t possibly be as committed to our relationships as you are is something else altogether.

But what if the other person didn’t mean it? What happens then? Do you force them to remain married to you?

I wouldn’t ask for a pre-nup, but if my wife had wanted me to sign one, and it seemd fair, I would have, because I have no great objection to one either.

It’s not the world I see that way, it’s the vows themselves. They state things that are negated by pre-nups. That’s all.

What are you talking about? I’ve said nothing about other people at all in any of these threads.

If I had said such things, I don’t think it would have been worse than some of the comments coming in the other direction.

When I decided to marry, I expected the same love and devotion on our parts to continue like it did for our parents.

There were times when we were tested.

I’m glad that our vows were not compromised by some document that would suggest that one of us might renege.

Going on strong for 35 years.

When I got married for the first time, the idea of a prenup never even crossed my mind. A prenup was something for the wealthy, like Hollywood actors and actresses or Donald Trump.

When I got married for the second time, I had to take the interests of my children into account, so we signed a prenup. While I had (and still have) no intention of the prenup ever needing to be relied upon, I had to allow for the possibility that things might not work out as I expected, and I would hate to have my children lose half of their future inheritance or more because I made a mistake in judgment about my spouse or because I didn’t take basic steps to protect their interests.

I’m married for the first time and I wouldn’t sign a prenup- except in a few circumstances that are really more for the benefit of other people. For example, if either my husband or I already had children when we got married or had property that was meant to stay in the family, I would have signed a prenup. I think those are really for the benefit of the children , or the family the property came from, not the future spouse. I wouldn’t expect those children or that family to trust me in the same way that I would expect someone I’m going to marry to trust me. And trust is the reason I wouldn’t have signed one. I’ve been married for 23 years, we’ve had good times and bad, and I know that just because we haven’t gotten divorced doesn’t mean we never will. And if we do , I expect there will be all sorts of nasty fights over who keeps which specific possessions - but I didn’t and don’t believe either of us would try to take advantage of the other overall.

My wife and I didn’t sign one because we were both fresh out of school and didn’t own anything or have any obligations to anyone else.

If something were to happen to her and by some quirk of fate, I was to remarry I would insist on one. Why? Because circumstances have changed. I have a son whose care I am responsible for, and I would probably leave my estate for his care, not to a spouse who can support herself without me. With that being the case, a prenup is necessary to waive any kind of elective share or augmented estate claim.

I think generally if the spouses are marrying later or again, and have assets, it makes sense to decide ahead of time how those things are going to be divided.