Pre-Nuptial Agreements

[leftrightleftrightleft]

What do people think of prenuptial agreements?

Doesn't making one show that you are somehow expecting failure?

Doesn't it cheapen the "commitment" somehow?

I feel like, if you're in it for life, then be in it for life and don't make plans for it to fail.

I feel like, despite the high divorce rate, no one enters a marriage expecting it to fail. Many people enter girlfriend-boyfriend relationships with the additional side note that says, "Well, I don't really expect it to go anywhere, but its fun right now so I'll just roll with it." Marriage is still idealized as "for life" despite the facts on the ground. Since most couples truly wish and hope that their marriage lasts for life, how does making a prenuptial agreement show your faith in the other person or your relationship from the get-go? If you have a lack of faith or trust in the marriage before it even happens, how do you expect it to last?

 

[Skaloop]

I can see both sides of it. If someone is wealthy, then there are people out there who would seek them out specifically for that. In which case, I think it's prudent to ask for a pre-nup to ensure that it's not just gold-digging. But I think such a pre-nup should be fair for both parties. For instance, a rich guy shouldn't get carte blanche to cheat because if there's a divorce she gets kicked to the curb with nothing. On the other hand, someone refusing to sign a pre-nup raises suspicion just as much (if not more) than asking for a pre-nup.

So I don't see how one would need a pre-nup unless one had something significant that their potential spouse might be marrying them for other than love.

On the other hand, I've heard some stories about regular folks who were screwed over by their exes and would have been in much better shape if there was a pre-nup in place. One person mentioned the other night that anybody who gets married without a pre-nup is an idiot.

 

[Jade Margery]

I think it depends entirely on the couple getting the pre-nup and the reasons for it.

Some people would see it as terribly un-romantic, like expecting the relationship to fail, as you've described.

But I consider myself a realist, and am considering having a pre-nup when I get married. I know the man I'm going to marry, we've been together almost five years now and we're very happy and still crazy in love even after the initial infatuation period has worn off.

But my logic goes like this: Who I am now is not who I will always be, and who he is now is not who he will always be. You don't get to choose who you're with forever when you marry them, you just have to hope that the person you will become and the person they will become will still love each other the way you love them now. And once you understand that people can change, it makes sense to have a pre-nup. You still go into marriage wanting and expecting to be with that person for the rest of your whole (hopefully happy) life, but know that in case something goes wrong, your divorce will be an amicably distribution of your assets as agreed upon at a time when you and your spouse still really cared about each other and weren't angry or hurt, which can make you irrational and likely to lash out at each other. I watched my parents go through a horrible court battle that teetered out for ten years and made them both miserable. If they had had a pre-nup, most of that could have been avoided.

You want to believe you're one of the couples who will live happily ever after. But if you're smart, you understand that you don't get to decide what you'll feel in the future on the day you get married, and you plan together for contingencies.

 

[Mling]

Yeah, I'm on both sides of the fence. I don't plan to get one, but I don't necessarily think they're that bad.

 

[disciple2011]

As marriage is a civil contract I do not see why anyone should not be able to protect themselves from those whom would abuse the contract.

 

[elenore]

I think they should be legally mandatory. That takes the pressure off people and protects them in case the situation does arise.

 

[Jade Margery]

I think they should be legally mandatory. That takes the pressure off people and protects them in case the situation does arise.

That's an interesting point of view. I am against using the law to force people to do things against their will, but I can see your point--requiring them as part of a marriage contract would make it so people wouldn't need to feel like they were dooming their relationship by having one.

I'm still going to side with personal liberty on this one, but I never thought of it that way before. Thanks for the new insight.

 

[GryffinSong]

I think that people don't tend to think through what a marriage really is. It's all hopes and dreams and "happily ever after." I confess that I'd find a prenup weird. But it makes sense to me, and I think it would help a lot of people. I have a neighbor going through a really nasty divorce. If they'd been clear their expectations beforehand, perhaps their daughter wouldn't be caught in the middle of so much fighting.

I think that believing marriage will definately last forever is being unrealistic. More than half end in divorce, and of those that last, many are unhappy. Let's put some realism in beside the love and hope. I actually think it might make marriage MORE likely to survive, because it will open up some very important topics and priorities before walking down the aisle.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Depends on the cicumstances. If someone has a very good income, and lives in as state that's considered a "no-fault" state, that could be a very big factor.


I don't think in all cases they're used because either side expects failure. I think some people, more than others, expect humans to be susceptible to human traits like
-the risk of failing
-the risk of changing their mind
-the risk of that person getting bored and wanting to move on

and for a rich person, they always will have a slight doubt when it comes to "do they really like me? or do they just like my money?"

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I can see both sides of it. If someone is wealthy, then there are people out there who would seek them out specifically for that. In which case, I think it's prudent to ask for a pre-nup to ensure that it's not just gold-digging. But I think such a pre-nup should be fair for both parties. For instance, a rich guy shouldn't get carte blanche to cheat because if there's a divorce she gets kicked to the curb with nothing. On the other hand, someone refusing to sign a pre-nup raises suspicion just as much (if not more) than asking for a pre-nup.

I think if you have such a suspicion, you should bring it up with the person. Your example exactly points out what I hate about a pre-nup: its grounded in distrust of the other person.

If you don't trust the person to not "gold dig" then you probably shouldn't be getting married...

On the other hand, I've heard some stories about regular folks who were screwed over by their exes and would have been in much better shape if there was a pre-nup in place. One person mentioned the other night that anybody who gets married without a pre-nup is an idiot.

This is also grounded in distrust of your potential spouse.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I think that believing marriage will definately last forever is being unrealistic.

I wholeheartedly disagree. If you don't believe this fully with your whole heart and soul then you ultimately won't put in the incredible amount of effort that it takes to remain committed to someone for life.

It seems to me that its a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you enter a marriage thinking it "could" fail then it is more likely to do so. If you enter a marriage saying, "I'm committing to this, through thick and thin, no matter what." then your perseverance and effort is more likely to come though.

I feel like most people think marriage will be easy rather than something that is a huge effort that must constantly be worked at and requires great perseverance.

More than half end in divorce, and of those that last, many are unhappy.

Why do you think this is so?

Let's put some realism in beside the love and hope. I actually think it might make marriage MORE likely to survive, because it will open up some very important topics and priorities before walking down the aisle.

You can still have discussions. Open and honest discussions. But those honest discussions should be focused on how to work through conflict and manage differences in personality and manage your time to make a marriage a healthy one. The honest discussions should not involve you sitting down with your spouse and beginning the conversation with, "So, if this should fail, what should we do?"

The discussion should begin, "How do we ensure that, no matter what, this never fails?"

 

[Shifu]

It seems to me that its a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you enter a marriage thinking it "could" fail then it is more likely to do so. If you enter a marriage saying, "I'm committing to this, through thick and thin, no matter what." then your perseverance and effort is more likely to come though.

You can still enter marriage thinking it "could" fail but totally commit yourself. Just like you could do a study course thinking you "could" fail but still study hard. And surely it's incredibly naive to think that your marriage "could not" fail - statistics are not in your favour. You should never assume that you're guaranteed to be the "exception" to the "rule."

However, my impression is that pre-nupital agreements do not truly protect you. They apparently expire automatically after 10 years, and even if they didn't, all your wife has to do is make the standard false claim of abuse and it goes out the window.

The only real protection if you're a man is to never get in a relationship, or live permanently in another country where men are treated more equally, and get married there.

 

[MattRose]

Yeah, I'm on both sides of the fence...

Owww!

 

[orchards]

prenuptial agreements depend on the situation that your in. If your really rich and your marrying someone not so well off, well then it might be a good idea... It all depends on your situation, but in some states you cant even get em.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I have no problems with people wanting pre-nups. I imagine the vast majority of people get into marriages loving each other and expecting it to last forever.

However, the unfortunate fact is over the course of years and decades, people sometimes change, grow apart and fall out of love. Sometimes despite huge amounts of effort to preserve the marriage and "reignite that spark" from both partners.

It's impossible to predict how you will be 20 years from now, and it's impossible to predict how your partner would be. So, safeguarding yourself from that possibility with a pre-nup is a wise course of action... then work hard at never having to look at your pre-nup ever again!

 

[[serious]]

What do people think of prenuptial agreements?

Doesn't making one show that you are somehow expecting failure?

Doesn't it cheapen the "commitment" somehow?

I feel like, if you're in it for life, then be in it for life and don't make plans for it to fail.

I feel like, despite the high divorce rate, no one enters a marriage expecting it to fail. Many people enter girlfriend-boyfriend relationships with the additional side note that says, "Well, I don't really expect it to go anywhere, but its fun right now so I'll just roll with it." Marriage is still idealized as "for life" despite the facts on the ground. Since most couples truly wish and hope that their marriage lasts for life, how does making a prenuptial agreement show your faith in the other person or your relationship from the get-go? If you have a lack of faith or trust in the marriage before it even happens, how do you expect it to last?

1. no one expects their marriage to fall appart
2. Marriages fall apart
3. If your marriage lasts, it doesn't matter if you have a prenup or not. It's a peice of paper sitting in a safety deposit box.
4. If your marriage doesn't last, it can make a huge difference as you've agreed how it's going to go down before you hated the guts of your [cheating/lying/distant/etc.] spouse.

It's like home owners insurance. Buying it doesn't mean you intend to leave unattended fires there.

 

[TheDag]

Just noticed this during a search and thought i would comment.

I used to think as many here do that pre-nups are like expecting to fail. however I saw an interview with someone who had signed a pre-nup even though they didn't want to. The situation was her partner and his parents owned a business betwen the 3 of them. The parents view was if the marriage fails then that could have implications for the business. Later on when this person who didn't want to sign it had a child who was getting married they understood the reason for it. I can understand that. If there is something involved that could affect people not in the marriage then I think it is quite reasonable to ask someone to sign a pre-nup.

 

[variant]

What do people think of prenuptial agreements?

Doesn't making one show that you are somehow expecting failure?

Doesn't it cheapen the "commitment" somehow?

I feel like, if you're in it for life, then be in it for life and don't make plans for it to fail.

Not making plans for contingencies is a good way to lose a lot of money. Similar to not buying fire insurance for your house. You certainly don’t want your house to burn down but that doesn’t mean it isn’t flammable.

What pre-nuptial agreements show is that the financial consequences of divorce are stark enough, and the dangers that people may marry you in order to simply take some of your wealth are great enough, that it is good to hedge your bets if you have a lot to lose.