How do you feel about pre-nups in marriage?

guys, would you require a pre-nup?

girls, would you agree to that?

was talking to some friends about this.

Personally, a pre-nup is out of the question for me. It says that he doesn't trust you and gives him the means to leave you abandoned and without money, especially if he's the breadwinner in the family. I would never agree to one, and I would have no problem walking away from someone over this. It just smells like bad news, bad intentions, no trust, and if there's no trust, why the hell are you getting married?

what are your opinions?


0|0
12|11

Most Helpful Girl

  • I wouldn't agree to one either. I just don't agree with the idea of divorce, and wouldn't divorce my husband unless he was abusive or maybe cheating on me. If he chooses to divorce me (which is unlikely, because I want to be sure my husband understands and shares my views on divorce before marrying him), then he's for sure not leaving me with nothing. Especially after all the time I'll be taking off work to raise our children.

    1|1
    0|0
    • Yeah, I wouldn't agree to marriage either. I just don't agree with the idea of breaking up, and I pretty promise I wouldn't break up with my girlfriend unless she was a terrorist. If she does break up with me though, she sure as hell isn't having further access to my financial resources. Especially not for voluntarily sitting home and taking care of the children, contrary to my wishes and over my protests that she go work and earn $60k+ a year so we can pay $15/hr to a babysitter.

    • Good luck with that.

What Guys Said 11

  • I think pre-nups are totally stupid.

    Like marriage, pre-nups are just a contract. Here is why they're stupid. Two people are voluntarily agreeing to the terms of one contract (marriage). Then, immediately before the terms of that contract take effect, they want to be bound by the terms of a second contract (the pre-nupt), which will have the effect of canceling out most of the material terms of the first contract (marriage). I mean, you either want to get married, or you don't want to get married. You either want to be bound by the terms of marriage, or you don't. If you do, then just get married. If you don't, then just don't get married.

    Now ladies, (QA included), easy with the not-so-subtle emotional blackmail with the whole marriage business.

    If the man is the breadwinner, no sh*t you would love to get married. Obviously. That's because the only person who has to gain from that kind of contract is you, and the only person who stands to lose is him. Yes, extraordinary events can occur, but on average and most likely, marriage is extremely beneficial to you. So, please don't even try to use all this emotional blackmail and conflate concepts like "trust" with marriage. Because if you really trusted someone, you would not demand to get married, you would just "trust" them to never abandon you or leave you and continue to support you. Otherwise, the only reason you demand the security of the marriage contract is because you "don't trust" them.

    Next, rather than getting married with a pre-nup, people are free to draft up their one Monroe v. Monroe type contract to govern the terms of their relationship (ONLY those terms which they want their relationship to be governed by). Do you want to treat the relationship like a partnership? Great! If the partnership dissolves, you take your equitable share, and nothing more. Do you want to treat the relationship like an employment relationship? Great! If the employment relationship terminates prior to "death do us part" (the agreed-upon end-date for employment), you'll get your severance package. Do you want to make out like a bandit and treat the relationship as both a partnership and an employment relationship? Good luck convincing the other side to agree to those terms (that's essentially the package deal of the "marriage" contract).

    No contract going forward? You can always sue for unjust enrichment (i.e., to recover the $10-15 per hour services of housecleaning, babysitting, cooking, and laudatory services provided to your partner but not intended as a gift). Unfortunately, to the dismay of many ladies, you cannot recover for sexual services rendered with the expectation of compensation, because prostitution is illegal. Sorry.

    So, in addition to marriage not making any sense whatsoever for men, marriage + a pre-nupt is a very stupid way of achieving the purpose of financial protection (when compared to not getting married at all).

    1|3
    2|0
    • I disagree. there are a ton of legal benefits in marriage that have nothing to do with trust.

      I guess values are different. marriage can be beneficial to a lot of men, depends on how he views relationships and what he's plans are in terms of building a life and family.

    • Show All
    • Yes, le sigh, oh well, and what . . . e . . . ver . . . Best of luck on finding your partially brain-dead carpet of a "man." May I suggest you start at some BDSM clubs. Just post, "Mistress looking for slave . . . I mean, woman looking for husband . . . STOP ARGUING WITH ME AND ASKING QUESTIONS AND JUST MARRY ME ALREADY! NO! NO PRE-NUP! NOW SHUT UP BEFORE I DIVORCE YOU! MUAHAHHAHA!" Like I said . . . WHAT . . . Eh . . . VER . . . lol

    • great counter-argument. classic. I'm late anyway so it doesn't matter.

      bdsm? that's kinky. you're kinky, mr.

      Well, I at least want an intelligent man who can argue his opinions well. So you're off the hook there, don't worry. I won't come after you with my whip ;D

  • "Personally, a pre-nup is out of the question for me. It says that he doesn't trust you and gives him the means to leave you abandoned and without money, especially if he's the breadwinner in the family. I would never agree to one, and I would have no problem walking away from someone over this. It just smells like bad news, bad intentions, no trust, and if there's no trust, why the hell are you getting married?"

    How dare he be able to leave! What's wrong with this man? Does he really believe everything he read in the Thirteenth Amendment? Psshh

    So, basically, you want to be able to "lock-in" a man, so that there are "consequences" if "he leaves you." At the end of the day, you want him to be at a "net loss" if he chooses to leave you. If he doesn't agree to this, that means, somehow, to you, that he doesn't trust you.

    That's interesting because, if the deal is set up that way, wouldn't you be "gaining" in the event of a divorce? How can you be trusted? After all, you have plenty of financial incentive to dissolve the marriage if he's the breadwinner. What's your incentive to find work instead of staying home to take care of the kids? More importantly, if you really trust him, why do you need to get married in the first place?

    The whole marriage thing just smells like bad news, bad intentions, no trust, and if there's no trust, why the hell are you even in a relationship?

    You're not simply insisting on the Disney Princess fantasy of marriage. No. You're asking to have "control over him," like a dog trainer has over a puppy he's fitted a shock collar on. Every time the puppy doesn't please or displeases the master, "shock." Threat! "I'm going to divorce you. You don't want me to divorce you now do you? If you don't want to lose your assets and keep paying me even though we're not together anymore, then you better make sure I'm happy. That threat isn't reciprocal sweetheart. After all, you're the breadwinner sugar. You're the one who stands to lose. I'm the one who stands to gain. See how that works honey?"

    I don't know what kind of bullsh*t you sprinkle that with in order to justify it otherwise to yourself, but the mere fact that you desire marriage means you seek to be "empowered" to have "control" over the breadwinner and have the ability to just sit on your @ss taking care of the kids, even if he doesn't want you to, even if the family would actually be better off if you educated yourself, worked, and brought home $80,000 a year and paid a part-time baby sitter $10 an hour. But if you're married, what is he going to do? Divorce you? LMAO HAHAHA?

    Marriage is not about love or trust, it's about CONTROL over the person who has move to lose in the event of a divorce. THAT'S why you hate the idea of a pre-nup, because it would TAKE AWAY that CONTROL from you.

    1|2
    2|0
    • I do not disagree with any of the stuff you wrote.

    • Show All
    • The burden of proof is on the person claiming that God "exists," not on the person challenging that proposition and posing questions to illustrate how God "does not exist." I showed you how marriage positioned men so that they stand to "lose" in the event of a divorce, which may be initiated by the woman alone. Hence, marriage "arms" women with a substantial threat of making men incur a "loss." When people can threaten you like that, they have power and control over you.

    • Therefore, one thing that marriage accomplishes is having "control" and "power over" the breadwinner! But, of course, you already know this. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone through this ridiculous effort to try and deny it, evade the point, and otherwise shift focus away from the subject. Now that that point is clear, though, do you have any ideas on how to "mitigate" or "address" that legitimate concern of "control," or is it simply not in your interest to do so?

  • "Pre-nup" has "bad idea" written all over it. It shows anticipation of problems that a couple doesn't think they'll be able to work through. A couple cannot and should not go into marriage thinking that way.

    3|0
    0|0
    • exactly. I think it is logical and pragmatic from a self interested standpoint, but I would argue there is a psychological consequence and implication that can't really be ignored. at least not for me. maybe not for everyone, but accepting defeat before even embarking on the journey of marriage seems pretty pointless.

  • I have noticed women without money are insulted by the idea of a pre-nup, while rich women demand a pre-nup. It is about being responsible and protecting yourself. Much like using a condom doesn't mean you don't trust your partner, it just means that you are being careful and protecting yourself. I would have no problem signing one if I was marrying a rich woman. If I had any money to lose then I would require the woman to sign one as well. It just makes sense.

    1|1
    0|0
    • without money or rich? I'm neither one of those so I don't know what this means for me? O.o

    • The only way a man would ask you for a pre-nup is if he had a lot more money than you. So in comparison to him you would be poor. On the other hand if you had $50,000,000 I bet you would make your man sign a pre-nup. It is the responsible thing to do.

    • true, about the money thing.

      I would still never agree to one, but I understand peoples arguments for them. its just not the kind of marriage id want for myself because I know my own emotions and I know how id feel about it.

  • its a lack of trust, but I feel like id like to get one because I don't trust people

    1|0
    0|0
    • lol well at least you admit that you wouldn't trust your gf/fiance.

    • ive been cheated on by too many girls to really trust my gf's lol fool me once etc

    • thats fine, at least you're self aware and you admit it though. I don't get how some people are actually arguing that its not a matter of a lack of trust or worrying that this person will try to f*** you over.

  • With the divorce rates as high as they are, with courts favoring women as much as they do, with the woman almost being 100% guaranteed to "protect their assets" and get one themselves if they happen to be in a high position, you bet your ass I'm getting one.

    Why wouldn't I? f*** this sh*t about trust. You bringing up "trust" is just saying you don't trust me

    0|2
    0|0
    • How does that work?

    • you don't trust me that I'd keep to the marriage

    • yeah. once someone shows me a part of them that they don't trust me, I probably do lose some trust in them as a consequence. even more reason for us to go our separate ways.

  • I would not marry any woman who cannot fend for herself financially. What ever she buys with her money is hers, whatever I buy with mine, is mine and in order to establish this, you need a pre-nup. There is not much difference in thinking "I don't work so I'll be ruined if I get a pre-nup and then get divorced" to "I could lose these things I've worked for if I don't get a pre-nup and then get divorced". It's not a matter of trust, but rather common sense, neither part wants to get screwed over in the event of a divorce, thus both parts are thinking about the possibility of marriage going wrong. Bringing "bad intentions" and "trust" as an argument is dishonest.

    0|0
    1|0
    • how is it dishonest? how is protecting yourself from someone not a matter of a lack of trust? please explain that little gem of thought.

    • Show All
    • Nope, will not. I'll just let him find someone who is willing to put up with that.

      Im still not seeing where it was implied that I don't have a job. care to explain in detail on that one? if not, that's cool. just curious where on earth you got that idea.

    • It is simply what you wrote. Takes more than 500 characters to properly explain, here's the short version: from your OP, take the fragment starting from "Personally..." all the way to "...over this." 1st sentence the subject is you (not 2nd person, literally you). 2nd sentence features a hidden subject, but there is no explicit wording to signify it has been changed, so the subject remains the same. 3rd sentence has you as a subject once more, reinforcing the notion that it hasn't been changed.

  • Well, you could argue that asking for a pre-nup is a sign that your partner doesn't trust you, and that it's legalistic and unromantic. But couldn't the same thing be said of marriage? Why not just have a serious committed relationship without marriage? You could say, "If you trust me and love me, you won't require me to agree to a pre-nup". But, the guy could just as easily say (especially if neither of you is religious), "If you trust me and love me, you won't require me to agree to a marriage".

    I don't see that a marriage with a prenup is any less romantic or more legalistic than a marriage without a prenup. A marriage is legalistic, and it's unromantic in the sense that it involves government and doesn't even require the spouses to be in love.

    0|0
    0|0
  • who needs a pre-nup when you're not even getting married? lol

    0|1
    0|0
    • lol true, you don't have to get married if you don't want to, obviously.

  • Without a pre-nup, expect to loose half your wealth within 5 - 10 years

    0|1
    1|0
  • Everyone is different, with different experiences and insecurities, but I personally would never enter into a marriage with a prenup. It's a virtual guarantee of a failed marriage.

    I view it as similar to a woman hyphenating her name. It's a failure to commit.

    Not for me...

    1|0
    0|1

What Girls Said 11

  • How do you feel about pre-nups in marriage?

    In my opinion I think if one is thinking of a pre-nup then one is probably suited not to get into the marriage as it seems they are planning for the end and do not trust their partner.

    Girls, would you agree to that?

    No I think it would be easier to just not get married that way he doesn't have to worry about his finances being taken from him.

    1|0
    0|0
    • Thanks you! I can't believe people don't get the trust part. its blowing my mind. "i trust you completely but, sign this paper saying you won't f*** me over. you know, just in case you do something crazy. but you know, I still trust you 100% baby."

      what the f*** is happening to the world? I cant. lol

      Nothing wrong with protecting yourself, but then maybe you shouldn't be getting married. or find someone who also likes prenups. its such a buzz kill for me though, couldn't do it.

  • You're wrong about prenups. The terms have to be agreed to by both parties, so if you don't like them you don't have to sign it.

    I would sign a prenup in a second, provided it wasn't stupid. In the event of a divorce, which is statistically probable, if the agreement stipulates that

    1- whatever we came into the marriage with reverts back to sole ownership if the marriage dissolves.

    2- what we have accrued together get treated as community property and is divided equally.

    3- custody of any children will be shared 50/50

    4- there are provisions for short-term alimony, if needed- especially if it has been agreed that the prospective parent of these future children will stay home with them- whether its him being a househubby or me being a housewife. If I work and he doesn't and we get divorced, then he should get alimony for a little while in order to establish himself. That's only fair.

    5- of course there would be more to it, but those are the main points.

    Everyone's ass is covered. If I were to marry again, I would insist on a prenup to safeguard the investements I already have. And if my husband-to-be got all huffy about it, I would have to ask why this man who is supposed to love me is so against me looking out for myself. I would expect him to sign it and not feel any kind of way about it, because he is supposed to want to look out for me, and that is what a prenup does. It protects ME. And if he refused, he wouldn't have to take a hike because I would already be gone. I mean, what is he planning? To marry me and get all my sh*t? No? Then sign it. If divorce just can't possibly happen then the whole thing is moot - so just sign it, then.

    1|2
    0|0
  • i'm against marriage,but if you're getting married-get a pre-nup. it's just rational planning in case one of you becomes irrational. love can be faked,and it can stop being what it once was-and if you stop loving the other person,divorces tend to become vengeful messes,it's better to prep at a rational time.

    1|2
    0|1
  • I'd be fine with one. Yeah, it kills the romance and notion of "forever", but in today's society it's just pragmatic.

    2|0
    0|0
    • It really does. I don't think I could handle that. like everything he would say, id take that back to "but you made me sign a pre-nup." who wants that kind of marriage? marriage is just a contract but there are layers and pre-nups, for someone like me, kill the emotional connection side of it and its way obvious that this person has not even a doomed intention of forever. it feels like theyre planning to still be financially independent at some point. pragmatic it may be, but I couldn't agree.

    • Yeah I guess it depends on the person.

  • A pre-nup is just a way to protect your assets in the event of divorce. It doesn't necessarily mean that that person loves you less at the time they presented the pre-nup or plans on loving you less. It's just that they understand that feelings can change down the line.

    Pre-nups also are a means of avoiding those awful financial messes that are so common with divorce, especially in community property states where division of assets acquired in marriage is automatic 50/50. I mean, if you built up a lot of money, I'm sure you wouldn't want it taken away like that.

    Besides, pre-nups are often drafted with fairness in mind. The person must disclose all their assets and s/he just can't leave the other person with little or nothing.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Before I met my ex-husband and got into the real estate business I always thought pre-nups were a stupid thing.

    When you see the kind of disputes and fights that go on when a divorce property goes up for sale both sides will never be happy even when they get asking price and some couples there will always be one that will disagree with the sale simply because the other agreed to it, not because the value is low but simply because they want to make a nuisance out of the whole situation.

    After going through a divorce where the only major asset we had was the family home and the last 5+ years of the marriage he was unemployed, things got rather out of hand when he said he wanted the house and I didn't want the house sold due to our 2 children. It isn't quite so straightforward these days that the woman automatically gets the house even if she has children.

    If ever my boyfriend and me got married, I will offer him a pre-nup. He has far more money than I do and has at least 6x more assets than I do and at the rate we go he will continue to grow his assets while I doubt I'd be able to gain all that much. It is only fair that he keeps what is his as that is his money. However in the pre-nup and in our marriage I will ask that each year of marriage 5% of his assets become 50-50 ownership and that 50% upon a divorce will go to me up until the last child we have turns 25 after which that will belong to him.

    One thing I don't believe in any longer is the system of child support therefore that is the only reason I will ask for his money upfront that way.

    0|0
    0|0
  • if I become really succesful later in life then I will get a prenup, I can trust a person in that moment but people change. I would totally agree to one.

    1|2
    0|1
    • You should read the case of Cioffi-Petrakis, and see how this woman (unrepresented) used a theory of fraud in the inducement to completely invalidate her husband's pre-nup (which was witnessed by her then attorney!). Pre-nups don't provide the kind of protection people imagine they do. You're much more secure just not getting married than getting married plus agreeing to a pre-nup.

  • well girls can require a pre-nup too. ha ha I think that they might make a perosn feel like their SO don't really love them or something. But I think that pre-nups are for when people don't like each other or something bad happens. when people are angry they change and can be very evil.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I do not agree with them. I'm of the opinion that if we get married, they're like saying he doesn't think I'm a decent human being who, in the event of a divorce (I don't believe in divorces btw) that I would not just take my things and be gone.

    My boyfriend said, and I quote, "A pre-nup is like saying the marriage is doomed before it even starts." And he's a law student so if he doesn't believe in them, then...

    1|0
    0|0
    • I said, and I quote, "men should not get married, unless it's to a richer woman." And, I'm a family law attorney, so if I advise against marriage, then...

      I'm of the opinion that if a girl insists on marriage, it's like she's saying she doesn't think I'm a decent human being who, in the even of conflict in the relationship (I don't believe in breaking up btw) that I would just take my things and be gone.

      O.o

  • Pre nups are stupid

    0|1
    1|1
  • You get into marriage with the goal of it being long-lasting and fulfilling, with love and trust on both sides, but that's not always how it plays out. People change. There's no promise that the person you marry today is going to be the same person you're married to 10 years from now. Who knows what will happen in-between. Somethings will make your bond stronger and build it up, but undeniably there are things that can tear it apart as well. I think if you're going to get married (and more people are opting not to), then it's smart to at least get a pre-nup. Better to prepare yourself for the worst than do nothing, hope for the best, and severely regret it later.

    1|0
    0|0
Loading...