I’d prefer it. I’ve done well for myself and after already having several friends lose everything in their divorce, I’m 27, there is not way I’d get married without one. I don’t think that prenups should cover future earning but I want to at least leave with what I came with everything after should be split 50/50.
You mean that if he’s not willing to share what he’s got with you in the case of divorce he’s not the man for you?
Wow.
I’d consider a prenup if one of us came into the marriage with significantly more assets, or if one party already had dependants (and than the prenup would apply only to assets present before our marriage).
I would not agree to a prenup just in case one of us made more money during the marriage. Marriage is about sharing the work, the benefits and the problems. It should not be a case of “I earned more, I get to keep more”. If a partner wanted to use a prenup for that event, then how about we don’t get married, keep our seperate bank accounts, you can pay rent to live in my house with me, and we’ll go dutch on any vacations.
Yup.
This is very well-put. I agree with everything - except the last sentence. I’d just dump him rather than stay with him! It should also be noted that working women bear the brunt of the housework, and therefore invest less time into their careers. While my mom’s earning potential was always higher than my dad’s, she (usually) made less than him because she did more of the kid running, grocery shopping, and general child care. It would be bogus to say, in the event of a divorce, that she deserved less than half.
I picked, “offended” because I think he would assume that I was being a total gold-digger if he asked me to sign it. I don’t really know how pre-nups work, but I think I would be offended by the implicit assumption of, “if this doesn’t work out, you’re going to try to wring me dry.”
No, condoms are the not marrying an asshole* of sex. A standing script for penicillin is the pre-nup of sex.
*Pre-nuptial agreements aren’t ultimately about protecting yourself from the outcome of a divorce, they’re about protecting yourself from your partner being an asshole about/during a potential divorce.
I had to pick “other” simply because it would depend on the prenup. I’m sure there are some that might offend me and some that wouldn’t.
I don’t have any problem with the concept of prenups.
I’m not someone who would officially ‘get married’, but if I was making a long-term ‘we’ll basically be married in all but name’ commitment to a guy I would prefer that we had arranged something similar to a pre-nup. It’s just good sense. You just don’t know how angry/bitter someone (or you) might get and what they/you might try to do because of it, regardless of what your intentions were 5/10/20 years ago. Divorce is hard enough without someone getting royally screwed.
To be honest, I don’t see how it undermines the promises made at the beginning of a marriage to say ‘and because we love one another so much, we’ve agreed that if the worst ever happens and we split up, we’ll do so in a way which we’ve already agreed is fair to both of us’.
To me, recognising the potential needs of your partner even in a future that you aren’t a part of and promising to respect their earnings and property even in the event that you come to despise them is actually a very loving gesture.
(Female, 26, never married)
Well, you are correct that it does sound like I’m suggesting there’s not intersection, but in fact, I should and do acknowledge that sometimes there is some overlap. Some marriages (economic and religious decisions) are also romantic relationships.
Which is why I can totally see your point. If marriage – to you – is a romance/relationship decision, then a prenup sort of defeats the purpose of making a lifetime commitment.
I’m a bit more cynical, jaded, and bitter about the whole relationship/marriage thing, so for me… all I can think about is “Well, I worked my ASS off to buy my house and fill it with stuff, and I’ll be damned if some guy is going to get it in a divorce because he moved in halfway through the payment schedule. Bullshit.” Unless of course the guy brings a lovely beach house to the marriage, in which case, I ain’t signing shit. (kidding)
I’m actually inclined to try to work out this sort of arrangement as my standard operating procedure. I find traditional marriage to be misogynist in nature, in general. I don’t like the idea of it. I don’t think any church or the state should have anything at all to do with my intimate relationships. The only reason that they do, from what I can tell, is churches want you to breed more tithing payers and the state needs to know who your heirs are, and of course, the state wants its cut as well.
Only way I’d modify the statement above would be to say “either you can pay me rent to live in my house, or I can pay you rent to live in yours, or we both liquidate both our houses and use the money to invest in something together 50-50.” For example, let’s say my partner and I each 50% of a house downpayment and buy a place together. I would keep my old house and rent it out, using the rent to pay my mortgage with partner. Right there’s my pre-nup. If the relationship falls apart, I still own my old house. I can evict my renter and move back.
Not all marriages mix money. Most people intermingle finances a little bit, but I do know some couples who have “his, hers, and ours” with each contributing equally to “ours.” None of that requires a marriage certificate nor a blessing from god to arrange.
Yeah, my wow stands.
Who in their right mind mind would want to get married? My Mom used used to say, only crazy damned fools.
It’s really handy for immigration sometimes, I will say.
Taxes
So you don’t have kids that are seen as illegitimate?