First off -- no, I'm not getting married. Perish the thought.
I just was reading an article MSN this morning about prenups and, once again, I have no idea where I land on this issue.
On the one hand, if you're getting married today it's pretty likely you will also get divorced. Should the worst happen you want to be prepared. Prenups are like life insurance -- you don't want to admit that you'll die, but you have to recognize the possibility and prepare for it accordingly.
On the other hand, signing a prenup is admitting the possibility that your marriage will fail, which is not at all the mindset you should take into your marriage. I can easily see how a person could decide that if their partner wants a prenup it shows a lack of faith in their relationship.
On the third hand, prenups are really only useful if there's a significant wealth disparity between the parties, i.e., one of you has a lot more to lose than the other (see Spears, Britney and Federline, Cletus). So maybe for a lot of us they're more hassle than they're worth.
Anybody have any insights on this that I'm missing?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
An agreement can be executed after the marriage has begun.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
A wise man once told me that you should plan to marry the woman you'd want to divorce.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
For couples with no children, I don't like them - it is too much like expecting to fail.
However, when there is a signifigant wealth disparity and especially when one or more parties already has children, then I think it is a very good idea, especially when there is both. Not having one is messing your children's financial stability and lives, and that's not okay.
Second marriages are much more likely to end in divorce than first marriages.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Unfortunately, the reason you want to get a divorce is sometimes because the person you're married to no longer seems like the wonderful, kind, sharing person you married.
Maybe it's "Sorry you turned into a nutcase" insurance.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Makes it seem like both parties have the divorce lawyer on speed dial before they even get the ring.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Maybe it takes money out of the picture, so if things do get tough, you have one less point of contention when trying to work it out.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: On the other hand, signing a prenup is admitting the possibility that your marriage will fail, which is not at all the mindset you should take into your marriage.
False. A good prenup (and many bad ones) also deals with how certain things (such as money) will be handled during the marriage. It should also include things that will prevent divorce (such as an agreement that the couple will see a therapist for a minimum of x months before getting a divorce will be considered). Some states now have such prenups as an option for couples getting married. Many religious groups do as well -- some for thousands of years.
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I can easily see how a person could decide that if their partner wants a prenup it shows a lack of faith in their relationship.
And I can easily see how refusing to sign one can indicate a lack of concern for the other in a worst-case scenario. Relationships aren't magic. Neither is love or marriage. Planning for the worst case is a good way to avoid it. Burying your head in the sand isn't -- quite the contrary.
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: On the third hand, prenups are really only useful if there's a significant wealth disparity between the parties, i.e., one of you has a lot more to lose than the other (see Spears, Britney and Federline, Cletus).
Absolutely disagree. In fact, if a wealth disparity is the main reason for a prenup, I think you're in trouble to start with.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Then it seems we're diametrically opposed on this issue. Sign #12,786 that you and I will never be married, eh?
Now we're getting somewhere, though. I need a good, solid disagreement to help me figure out what I think and why.
What do you think is the best reason for a prenup? Or the situation in which it would be most beneficial? It seems that you'd want one in situations where I wouldn't even consider one.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Then it seems we're diametrically opposed on this issue. Sign #12,786 that you and I will never be married, eh?
Aren't we in the six digits yet?
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: What do you think is the best reason for a prenup? Or the situation in which it would be most beneficial? It seems that you'd want one in situations where I wouldn't even consider one.
I actually think every couple should have one. And more importantly, should discuss the issues involved -- how they will handle money, what they will do when they have disagreements they cannot settle, etc. -- IN DETAIL before they get married.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A lot of people cite prenups as being necessary when the spouses each have children from other relationships. There's also often talk of "protecting" assets from ex-spouses (which would protect one's children from the new marriage).
A prenup can be important in these situations, but it is not always sufficient. Other documents are often needed, especially with respect to claims by ex-spouses. I really worry that people do prenups without doing the other aspects of estate planning that are essential to accomplishing the goal of protecting one's children financially.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: What do you think is the best reason for a prenup? Or the situation in which it would be most beneficial? It seems that you'd want one in situations where I wouldn't even consider one.
I actually think every couple should have one. And more importantly, should discuss the issues involved -- how they will handle money, what they will do when they have disagreements they cannot settle, etc. -- IN DETAIL before they get married.
I agree, but I don't think that anything legally binding is necessary for things like that. If you can't come to an agreement over who will pay bills, how you'll deal with money, and stuff like that then not having a prenup is the least of your worries.
I wasn't aware that prenups typically dealt with stuff like that, so that's something to think about. I do like the idea of setting down what steps you'd take before divorce, counseling or mediation or therapy or whatever.
When I think prenup, I really only think of a document detailing the dividing of assets upon the dissolution of the marriage.
I think many of the things you'd have a prenup cover could be taken care of by mutual agreement and trust. Your way is safer, but I hate to picture the relationship where someone would have to threaten their partner with a signed contract to get them to pay the water bill on time.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: A good prenup (and many bad ones) also deals with how certain things (such as money) will be handled during the marriage. It should also include things that will prevent divorce (such as an agreement that the couple will see a therapist for a minimum of x months before getting a divorce will be considered). Some states now have such prenups as an option for couples getting married. Many religious groups do as well -- some for thousands of years.
Prenups are extremely common in this culture, whether the marriage is an arranged one or a love match. It deals with things like who brings what assets into the marriage, who continues to own them after the marriage, if things change at some point down the road, what happens to those assets upon divorce or death of one or the other spouse. Who controls/deals with monetary matters is also typically covered, I believe.
I like the idea of writing into the prenup clauses for marriage counselling and the like.
I'm not against prenups - I think they're a good idea. I think that they can be very useful for helping couples discuss some important issues before marriage occurs, and I think they can be useful for setting some reasonable ground rules.
A couple of friends of mine, before they got married, had a sort of prenup - not written up by lawyers, but amongst themselves - that involved things like the rules they wanted their family to live by. They hashed out the details beforehand, discussed a lot of important issues like childraising, and came to a pretty decent consensus. I think it's cool. Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Since I believe adultery is the only valid cause for divorce (though other things might make separation necessary), my version of a prenup would go like this:
In the event of divorce, if one spouse has committed adultery and the other has not, the adulterer gets 0% and the other gets 100%.
If neither has committed adultery, the person initiating the divorce gets 0% and the other gets 100%.
Marriage is forever, with one exception. (That's what Jesus said, no I don't want to argue about it.)
I'd be fine to sign a prenup like this. In fact I almost had one drawn up before I got married but I just never got around to it because I didn't really expect it to be necessary.
But a prenup like this I don't see as planning to fail. Rather, the laws used to protect innocent spouses from adulterous ones, and now they don't. It's merely using a specific contract to replace the protections that used to be covered automatically.
The other kind of prenup, "if we get divorced, I keep what I had, you keep what you had" does seem to be a tacit assumption that divorce is inevitable or at least perfectly likely.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Your way is safer, but I hate to picture the relationship where someone would have to threaten their partner with a signed contract to get them to pay the water bill on time.
So do I. Having the document can be sufficient. If it is used as a "stick," not only does it seriously damage the relationship, it rapidly loses any power.
The power of a prenup comes from both parties having agreed to it and keeping it in mind. Not from using it as a weapon.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't have any general opinions about prenups. I decided that I didn't want/need one, and left it at that. I have no opinion about whether others should/should not get them.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
My office (estate planning attorneys) does prenups on occasion. Most of them are in cases where one (or sometimes both) party has been previously married and has provisions in their documents for the prior spouse and/or children from the first marriage. Either specific bequests or specific disinheritance.
The vast majority of the prenups we draw up cover details such as insurance coverage (both health and life), ownership and maintenance of residences and vehicles (especially when these are brought into the marriage), employment issues ("salary" for a stay-at-home spouse) and spousal maintenance in case of divorce (including a breakdown of how much is paid based on the length of the marriage).
One memorable prenup we did also included details of how many children the parties agreed to have and financial "incentives" (for lack of a better word) to meet that objective. Very TomKat, frankly, but almost 5 years earlier.
As Dag said, there are several other documents that we do in conjunction with these. Wills, trusts, powers of attorney, living wills, even deeds to homes to make sure they're retitled into the names of both parties as husband and wife. Unfortunately, because they generally make reference to the other party as "my spouse", they can't be executed till the marriage is legal. We've been burned on occasion when we've gotten everything ready and suddenly the wedding doesn't happen.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think that prenups are pessimistic by nature and that people who believe they might be necessary should get them.
Those who don't believe they might be necessary may still be best served by having a prenup, but like any other form of insurance you need to consider the costs and risks involved.
A prenup involves going through a number of potentially difficult processes: apportioning assets, custody of children, support payments, etc. This could be an emotionally trying and contentious discussion to have with your spouse or spouse-to-be. That cost has to be weighed against the risk that a divorce may occur and that you and your spouse will not be able to have the same conversation equitably at the time of the divorce.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
JT do you keep count on the number of reasons you're not marrying each female hatracker? If so what number are we at? I don't do numbers.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: One memorable prenup we did also included details of how many children the parties agreed to have and financial "incentives" (for lack of a better word) to meet that objective.
Financial incentives to have children could get very strange if fertility issues came up. Particularly if the "incentivizer" was the one with the problem.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
I can see where it be a good thing - especially if there are chattels from another marriage, or indeed children whose interests need to be protected.
However my gut reaction is that a prenuptial agreement is a cold cold thing. I agreed to better or worse and 'til death us do part, and I like to think I'm a man of my word.
True, I was 33 when I got married, my wife 35 and it was not something we rushed into, but nevertheless...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I actually think every couple should have one. And more importantly, should discuss the issues involved -- how they will handle money, what they will do when they have disagreements they cannot settle, etc. -- IN DETAIL before they get married.
I am totally with you on this. I can see the value of a prenup because, as someone else said, it makes money less of an issue. And aren't finances a huge reason that a large number of marriages fail? I think I'd like to not have to worry about that kind of thing if I got married, and we were having problems. Less opportunity to become bitter and angry toward one's spouse. And if you did get divorced, I expect it'd make for much less nastiness.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I will insist on a prenup. The person I marry will understand this or, more likely, be as vehement about it as I am. A person I'm in a relationship with not wanting a prenup could and likely would be a deal breaker for me.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*sigh* eros, when will you just stop pretending and admit your undying love for me?
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
The second you move here and we have hawt makeouts?
Prenups are important, but I am demanding the hawt makeouts prior to marriage.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, good. Because I place hawt makeout skillz above prenups in my list of requirements for marriage.
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: JT do you keep count on the number of reasons you're not marrying each female hatracker? If so what number are we at? I don't do numbers.
Not generally -- the women of hatrack are overwhelmingly safe from me. But if you want, breyer, I can start you at #1 -- you don't do numbers. Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
#2 I set you up with Rivka.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
So...you only list reasons for those Hatrackers with whom marriage is conceivable and therefore reasons must be listed in order to prevent an error?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
*takes the 5th*
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
JT and I can never be married because he didn't answer the phone when my idiot friend locked us out of the bathroom, and I needed to find someone who knew how to use tools.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
JT and I can never be married because he doesn't think I'm pretty.
Plus no pre-nup or hawt makeouts.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It's okay, eros. I still think you're pretty.
....now, will you get back in the kitchen and bake me a pie?
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Since I believe adultery is the only valid cause for divorce (though other things might make separation necessary), my version of a prenup would go like this:
In the event of divorce, if one spouse has committed adultery and the other has not, the adulterer gets 0% and the other gets 100%.
If neither has committed adultery, the person initiating the divorce gets 0% and the other gets 100%.
What are your thoughts regarding spousal abuse? Should someone being abused (for the sake of example, let's say several trips to the ER with black eyes and broken bones) be only permitted a legal separation, not divorce, from his or her abuser [and if a divorce is granted, be permitted none of the marital assets]?
----
Edited to add: I'm asking because this strikes me as an intriguingly bare bones view of divorce leniancy, and the conclusions I draw from it about what you believe in certain cases would be unexpected ones for me. I'm not trying to get you to defend yourself, by the way, just to clarify whether or not you intend to mean what I take you to mean.
Of course, if you want to explain or elaborate, that's totally up to you. I won't be pressing the point of why you believe it, though.
[ August 29, 2007, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: *takes the 5th*
But I wanna be 5th!!! Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Maybe he has a broad definition of adultery--that if your spouse abuses you, he or she has already committed a severe betrayal of your marriage vows.
On the original topic...
I like to look at prenups as contracts to protect your spouse if YOU ever go crazy and lose your mind. And the other party should look at it in the same way. However, I don't have a prenup. We both came to this marriage with nothing, and we're not getting out of it alive. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Maybe he has a broad definition of adultery--that if your spouse abuses you, he or she has already committed a severe betrayal of your marriage vows.
*nods
I would find that less surprising. It would, of course, mean that a lot of complexity gets packed into one of the words of an otherwise very straightforward sentence, but that happens all the time.
I do find it more useful when that complexicity is explicitly acknowledged, though, since without the acknowledgement, the evaluation of the situation looks more straightforward and simple than it really is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A prenup involves going through a number of potentially difficult processes: apportioning assets, custody of children, support payments, etc.
It should be noted that agreements concerning the custody of children are not inherently enforceable.
I see a large value to agreeing to elements that can't be enforced in court, but I think it's important that people explicitly acknowledge that such elements of an agreement are not intended to be legally binding.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Divorce isn't something that takes a couple by surprise, against their will, like a lightning strike or a plane crash. It is something that at least one of the partners must choose. If you do a prenuptial agreement, you are choosing to leave the option to divorce open. My fiancee and I already made our decision that we will never divorce. *That* is our prenuptial agreement.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The idea that couples who decide not to have prenups are somehow romantically superior to those who decide to have them somewhat irks me. Signing a prenup is not equivalent to going into a marriage expecting it to fail.
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I believe in estate planning, and open and clear communication between husband and wife regarding finances. If my husband died and I re-married I would want to do all I could to safeguard my children and the assets I bring into my new marriage for the sake of my children's inheritance. I have, unfortunately, seen it too many times where a person remarries after a death and the new stepfamily gets everything and the other children get nothing. I'm not even talking about money necessarily, but things like family heirlooms with no real value except sentiment, sold or given away by the new stepmom out of spite, just to keep the adult child from having it. Ugly, ugly situations - and I've seen it more than once, in my own family when I would have told you before that nothing like that would ever happen.
So, if either Wes or I remarry after the other's death, we have both expressed how we want our four children to be protected. And with my cancer diagnosis last year, we did discuss these issues. Everyone should discuss them, not just after a diagnosis of a serious illness.
But pre-nups in a first marriage situation where neither person has children - no, I can't see me ever wanting to do that.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think they can be useful too! I like the idea of signing an agreement that's completely symmetrical (that is, whatever one spouse is held to, the other spouse is as well), and each spouse thinking of it as protecting the other in the event they themselves go crazy.
At the very least, it means you've thought about what your life together will be like in detail, and that you agree. Also, words written down do have a weight that words spoken don't have. I think it can be a wonderful extension of one's marriage vows.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Now I want to watch that movie with N.O.M.A.N. In it. I'd never associated that with Noemon before. But now I will. "let Noemon put us asunder."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think it's cute when people say that they will NEVER consider divorce (who goes into marriage thinking, "I'm probably going to divorce this one in 5 years, but it will be fun until then"?), but at the same time it's so naive.
I had no intention of getting divorced, but when my ex flipped out and started behaving completely differently from when we got married, lying to me regularly, refusing to come into physical contact with me in any way, and refusing to make any efforts to do anything about it, divorce seemed like the better option to a life of misery for the both of us.
Call me whatever names you like, I'd much rather be a quitter and a sinner and a horrible husband or any other judgments you care to make, and be happy and in a healthy relationship.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Whatever, sinner.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
SINNARZ! ALL OF YOU!
-pH
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
So I guess that makes two camps: the "cute" and "naive" camp, and the ones that suspect they may be called "sinner" and "quitter" and "horrible."
I've decided not to be a horrible quitting sinner *or* a naif. I'd decide not be cute, but some things just can't be helped.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I think it's important to plan ahead for all possibilities in any undertaking, and marriage is no exception. Maybe it is cold, but that doesn't mean it isn't the smart thing to do. People can change. Unexpected things happen. I don't think I will ever get divorced (I figure, hey, I'm so impossibly rational that I wouldn't get married unless I thought it was a sure thing), but I'm still going to get a prenup.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Qaz, you don't see how it could be a little irritating to read responses like, "Well, I'M never going to get divorced, so obviously signing a prenup is like deciding ahead of time that your marriage is going to fail. Just don't get divorced!"?
I'd like to think that most people don't go into their marriages thinking that this is just something they're going to try out for a while. That doesn't mean that divorce can always be avoided just because it generally doesn't happen overnight. I think the most damaging part of divorce is the squabbling over property. That's when people seem to get the most vindictive. I also don't think most couples really do thoroughly think about finances before they get married, and I wish that more of them would.
-pH
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Which is worse?
A prenup may be a sign that one is planning for failure.
Lacking a prenup may be a sign that one is not planning at all.
Its like Sex Ed and Free Condoms in schools. They may be planning for failure in regards to virginity, but I think its better than no planning at all.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think it is important to discuss as many things as possible before marriage. My husband and I did not get a prenup- we had nothing before hand and we both agreed that 50/50 makes sense.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: JT do you keep count on the number of reasons you're not marrying each female hatracker? If so what number are we at? I don't do numbers.
Why only the females?
-o-
I too am looking forward to Seatarsprayan's reply to CT.
-o-
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: Very TomKat, frankly, but almost 5 years earlier.
What's it say about me that I didn't catch the reference at first, and wondered why you were bringing BannaOj into this?
-o-
Count me among those who aren't crazy about the idea of prenups.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Anything two people want to agree to that doesn't hurt anyone else is fine by me, but I don't agree that prenups are necessarily a universally good idea.
Marriages are built largely on trust and, for some people, a prenup indicates a lack of confidence in either your partner or the relationship itself.
Trust is an individual and not always rational thing. For people that view a prenup as a demeaning of their confidence in their spouse or vice versa, justified or not, I think the preparation and even very existence of the prenup can cause harm.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:What's it say about me that I didn't catch the reference at first, and wondered why you were bringing BannaOj into this?
You aren't the only one!
Posted by guinevererobin (Member # 10753) on :
quote:A prenup may be a sign that one is planning for failure.
Lacking a prenup may be a sign that one is not planning at all
In both cases... might be, might not be. You can plan for the future, talk through finances, career plans, child-raising, etc, without having a prenup too. I think that's why so many churches require marital counseling before they all you to marry there as well.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Marriages are built largely on trust and, for some people, a prenup indicates a lack of confidence in either your partner or the relationship itself.
Wrong.
Edit: the people who assume the latter are, that is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think you can categorically say that is wrong. Some prenups are absolutely motivated by a lack of trust (see rivka's sage comment "if a wealth disparity is the main reason for a prenup, I think you're in trouble to start with").
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
You're right, of course, but the generalized attitude that "a prenup indicates a lack of confidence in either your partner or the relationship itself" is silly. I mean, if I tell my partner, "I love you, I want to get married, and I want a prenup," am I the one being unconfident in my partner and relationship?
If that causes my partner to question my confidence in her and the relationship, well, I think that speaks pretty loudly about who has the confidence problem.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Marriages are built largely on trust and, for some people, a prenup indicates a lack of confidence in either your partner or the relationship itself.
Wrong.
Edit: the people who assume the latter are, that is.
We're dealing with human beings who's emotions have to be factored into the equation. I've experienced my share of unjustified negative emotions, and I'm sure most other people have as well.
All I'm saying is that for people who have a negative emotional response to the concept of a prenup, a prenup may be harmful.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If that causes my partner to question my confidence in her and the relationship, well, I think that speaks pretty loudly about who has the confidence problem.
Sure does. That person is obviously experiencing some insecurity. Perhaps you can bring them around, perhaps you can't.
EDIT: And if you can't bring them around, is it worth giving up on marriage with that person?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If a prenup is going to be such a stumbling block that it's going to ruin the marriage, how fragile is it already?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:EDIT: And if you can't bring them around, is it worth giving up on marriage with that person?
Is it worth not marrying someone who tells me they believe I'm not confident in our relationship while simultaneously demonstrating their utter lack of confidence?
Hell yes.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Like I said, it's not going to be the same for everyone. Me, I'm not a prenup kind of guy. Divorce, for me, would be such a disaster that even the loss of all of my assets would be a minor concern. A prenup would feel like getting insurance on my ten speed that would kick in in the event that my house burned to the ground. Sure, I'd get a brand new bike, but who cares?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
MattP, you say that now, but imagine that you have to deal with a divorce AND being dirt poor. That's exactly why you need to keep your assets, a divorce is devastating enough, without also having to worry about being able to pay the rent, car payments (if you get to keep the car), buy food, etc.
What if you're so depressed by the divorce that you lose your job? I don't see how being completely destitute would help anything.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Personally, I find the idea of being in a relationship without which I feel the rest of my life would be that absolutely meaningless...um, frightening and stifling. I want to marry someone with whom I can share my life...but I don't want every aspect of my existence to revolve around him.
-pH
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I can't provide a real good answer as at the time I got married I was very young (probably too young) and was not really thinking ahead to much. An abundance of caution probably would have prevented me from getting married in the first place, nevermind prenups. 13 years later I'm very happy with how things have turned out.
I've seen a number of marriages fail and none of them would have likely done so more gracefully if a prenup were part of the deal. No one was left broke or a got a short enough end of the stick to really complain about.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Personally, I find the idea of being in a relationship without which I feel the rest of my life would be that absolutely meaningless
I agree, that would suck.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Matt, you haven't seen exes turn nasty and bitter toward one another during a drawn-out divorce proceeding? I have. On several occasions. And the children usually suffer because the parents have a hard time being civil to one another.
-pH
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Matt, you haven't seen exes turn nasty and bitter toward one another during a drawn-out divorce proceeding? I have. On several occasions. And the children usually suffer because the parents have a hard time being civil to one another.
-pH
I haven't, but I know my experiences don't translate to universals. I know some divorces are terrible and assets are a big deal, but the "bad" divorces I've seen have not been caused by money/asset issues. The anger was over pre-divorce infidelity or abuse. (and one where the husband decided that he was gay - yikes)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Divorce isn't something that takes a couple by surprise, against their will, like a lightning strike or a plane crash. It is something that at least one of the partners must choose.
True. However, if one makes that decision, the other is left with precious few options. Moreover, some of the factors that can lead to a divorce do take at least one half of the couple by surprise. An exceedingly incomplete list (based solely on divorces where I personally know at least one of the parties): drug addiction, gambling addiction, physical abuse, serious emotional abuse, repeated infidelity, physical abandonment, emotional and financial abandonment.
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: If you do a prenuptial agreement, you are choosing to leave the option to divorce open. My fiancee and I already made our decision that we will never divorce. *That* is our prenuptial agreement.
Actual statements made by my then-fiance:
Divorce is not an option.
When we have problems, we will work them out. If we can't do that ourselves, we'll talk to <person the two of us had agreed upon>.
Actual statements made by my then-husband 10 years ago, when I was upset and freaked out by the divorce of friends of ours:
Don't worry. That will never happen to us. We won't let it.
Actual statements made by my then-STBX five years ago:
This is too hard. I can't do this anymore. I'm moving out.
I know I said this would never happen, and I meant it at the time.
A prenuptial agreement like this one (which became common a couple years after I got married) not only would have made my divorce easier, I believe it might have helped it not happen at all. Having immediate financial consequences to moving out might have kept him from doing so. And if not, at least there would not have been over a year where I was not receiving consistent financial support.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote: quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: Very TomKat, frankly, but almost 5 years earlier.
What's it say about me that I didn't catch the reference at first, and wondered why you were bringing BannaOj into this? [Wink]
Wait, you mean TomKat means something besides Tom Davidson and Katharina allegedly being the same person?
I admit to not being the most romantic person ever. I want to plan for the future, even if it seems a little cold. I don't know if I'd have a prenuptial agreement, but I wouldn't rule it out. "It won't happen to me" tends to be a risky thing to say.
Tatiana, I like the idea that the agreement is as much for the protection of your spouse as it is for your protection. If I somehow transform myself into an evil overlord, then the last thing my current non-evil self would want, if I loved my hypothetical husband, would be to trap him in a miserable relationship.
Then too, marriage itself is a legally binding thing. It isn't just about the love and trust between the couple, though ideally it may be based on those things. If I wanted to leave the legal system out of it completely, I'd have a religious ceremony and skip the license. However, it often does make sense in a lot of ways to have a legally binding relationship, and it also makes sense to modify the standard contract with a prenuptial if it doesn't meet your needs.
I guess I don't understand the vehemence about it, though.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: JT do you keep count on the number of reasons you're not marrying each female hatracker? If so what number are we at? I don't do numbers.
Why only the females?
With the males, I stop at reason #1 -- they have the wrong junk.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I know I said this would never happen, and I meant it at the time.
You know, I've heard that one.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Parents = divorced me = prenup
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I realize why I'm averse to prenups. I think divorces should come with sacrifice. I think that if there is a highly unequal balance of assets going into the marriage, the poorer spouse should have claim to half. Divorcing and keeping ones assets strikes me as a case of having ones cake and eating it too. I'll fully admit that this isn't the most materialistic argument I've written, but at the heart, it's how this issue strikes me. There would have to be an extraordinary circumstance before I'd sign a prenup-- I imagine love is the oldest extraordinary circumstance in the world-- but I do know that if my marriage ended in divorce, she could have it all.
It's a deep issue because it involves the colliding of two worlds, the dissolution of a marriage, which is largely a matter of human artistry, and the dividing of assets, which is the epitome of worldly concern.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
If she has more money than you, does that mean you're fine with taking it all?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: If she has more money than you, does that mean you're fine with taking it all?
Is that even a question?
I'm not sayin' I'm a gold digger, but I ain't goin' with no broke um... ladies Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Charming.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: but I do know that if my marriage ended in divorce, she could have it all.
To me, this attitude falls under the frightening and stifling one I previously mentioned...it seems close to the idea that if one's relationship ended, nothing else in the world would matter.
-pH
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If she has more money than you, does that mean you're fine with taking it all?
Me being me, money would be the least of my issues. I wouldn't ask for any. I'd be too busy trying to summon my will to get up in the morning.
quote:To me, this attitude falls under the frightening and stifling one I previously mentioned...it seems close to the idea that if one's relationship ended, nothing else in the world would matter.
It's not that nothing in the world would matter, but I think I'd make a morose and listless ex-husband.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It's a lot easier to be morose and listless when rent's taken care of.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Qaz, you don't see how it could be a little irritating to read responses like, "Well, I'M never going to get divorced, so obviously signing a prenup is like deciding ahead of time that your marriage is going to fail. Just don't get divorced!"?
Compared to divorce, being a little irritated is very very small potatoes.
I'm not sure who it was that said that signing a prenup is like deciding ahead of time that your marriage is going to fail. It wasn't me.
I *will* say that signing a prenup involves deciding ahead of time that divorce is an option.
--
Many societies, including ours in the past and India's today (1% divorce rate), have been full of people for whom it was not an option. It is not a bizarre and untested idea. We can examine the marriages and divorces and decide for ourselves if divorce being an option made everyone happier or less happy.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I *will* say that signing a prenup involves deciding ahead of time that divorce is an option.
Divorce is an option. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say, "La la la, I can't hear you!" as often and as loudly as you like and you won't change that. It's romantic to think that, but completely naive.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
NOT divorcing is not always an option. What do you do if your spouse decides on his/her own that the marriage is over? What about in cases of abuse or infidelity? Just saying "divorce isn't an option" isn't enough, as several other people have pointed out.
-pH
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
To keep it simple, let's assume that the legal default is that when a couple divorce all their assets are split equally between them. I think there are at least three factors that contribute to whether this default state is seen generally as "fair".
1. The wealth disparity between the spouses when they get married.
2. The length of time the marriage has lasted when the parties get a divorce.
3. The circumstances surrounding the divorce.
These factors all affect eachother to a varying degree. Thus it might seem unfair if a poor man takes half his exwife's wealth after a year long marriage, although less so if she's the one that unprovoked initiates the divorce. In my view, a good prenup should adress these factors and ameliorate the default state in such ways that it accords with the prospective couple's views of fairness.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't have health insurance because breaking my arm isn't an option to me.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I think most people feel that prenups are not a bad idea, moneywise, but asking for one is more than a little awkward.
Why not make prenups mandatory for all couples applying for a marriage license, killing the need to actually ask for one?
Then, if a couple doesn't really need or want one, they can sign the paper stating that they want to split things 50-50 in the case of the divorce.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why not make prenups mandatory for all couples applying for a marriage license, killing the need to actually ask for one?
Because I think it's unrealistic to expect everyone to get a lawyer before getting married, and it's really, really necessary for parties to understand the legal ramifications of a prenup if we are going to give the prenup legal effect.
quote:Then, if a couple doesn't really need or want one, they can sign the paper stating that they want to split things 50-50 in the case of the divorce.
The standard in most states is not 50-50 but a fact-based examination that delves into many issues. It would be a major shift to go to a 50-50 division.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Whether or not to get a prenuptial is the sort of thing that should probably be worked out in pre-martial counseling, along with mundane but important issues like how money will be handled. I can't see it being any more awkward than asking about joint or separate bank accounts.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Divorce is an option. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say, "La la la, I can't hear you!" as often and as loudly as you like and you won't change that. It's romantic to think that, but completely naive.
It may seem that repeating assertions and calling names will convince people, but I don't think it often does.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It may seem that ignoring things will make them go away, but sadly that's not the case.
I know it can be a lot of fun to be obstinate, but it's so easy to be reasonable in this case.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Do keep in mind that while it takes effort on both sides to make a relationship work, it only takes one person's decision to end things. I am not the first person in this thread to say that.
-pH
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I think most people feel that prenups are not a bad idea, moneywise, but asking for one is more than a little awkward.
I think you're probably not ready for marriage if you're not asking a prenup because it's "a little awkward." It's like saying, "Oh, I didn't ask my partner to get tested before we had sex because it made me uncomfortable."
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)