NationStates Jolt Archive

A prenuptial accord is a contract between two people about to wed that spells out how assets will be distributed in the event of divorce or death. Such agreements have existed for thousands of years in some form or another, particularly in European and Far Eastern cultures, where royal families have always made provisions for protecting their wealth.

I actually think a Pre-Nup is a great idea. It protects both party from getting cleaned out in divorce courts. I've seen too many cases where a couple didn't get a pre-nup, and then the woman (one time a guy) would take the guy (or that one girl) to divorce court and clean him (her) out. To me, a Pre-Nups protect the person from that. I will not get married without a pre-nup.

The reason I brought this up because I had a debate about it in one of the Yahoo Chat Rooms, and there was about 3 women who didn't like the idea of a pre-nup because it takes all of the romance out of a marriage.

In my Pre-Nup, it'll state that whatever I bring into the marriage, I leave with. Whatever she brings into the marriage, she leaves with. Whatever we aquire together will be split 50/50 by the value of the aqusition. So, say like we both aquire $100,000 worth of stuff in our marriage. I will get $50,000 worth of stuff, and she'll get $50,000 worth of stuff. That way everyone is happy. My Pre-Nup will also state that I do not have to pay Alimony, however if we do have a child, whoever gets the child, the other person will have to pay child support. So if I get the child, she will have to pay child support and vice versa.

So what do yall think about pre-nups?

I think...

I ain't saying she's a golddigger...uh...

But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas...uh...

Damn you for causing this song to become stuck in my brain...

I think...

I ain't saying she's a golddigger...uh...

But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas...uh...

Damn you for causing this song to become stuck in my brain...

Haha. I was thinking the SAME thing.

I think...

I ain't saying she's a golddigger...uh...

But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas...uh...

Damn you for causing this song to become stuck in my brain...

It's an evil, evil song, that even porn music wont get out of my head.

Ok, getting back to the topic on hand... Yay my 666th post!

I think they're a good idea. You never know what's going to happen in the long-term, so it's best to have all your options covered. If you have an agreement stating clearly what you've both put into the marriage, and what you expect to get out of it should it fail, there is no room for lies about finances/assets or unreasonable demands if you end up going through a messy divorce.

Although pre-nuptial agreements are not legally binding in Northern Ireland at present, my boyfriend and I intend to have one anyway if we get married (they may be binding by that point, who knows).

It's a good idea if you know you have a hefty sum for inheritance or you have money or something that was passed down of value that you want to protect. It's also a good way of avoiding lengthy court battles over alimony. It spells out what the pair are entitled too and reduces the need for lawyers.

Here's the way I look at it:

Marriage is a committment for life. While a divorce may become necessary, it is the last resort. If marriage is a committment for life, one should not make that committment to someone they do not trust. If they do trust that person, there is no reason to feel that a prenuptial agreement is necessary, unless there is no other legal way to do what the couple has agreed upon.

Prenuptial agreements, to me, are evidence of distrust in a relationship. If distrust exists in that relationship, the people involved shouldn't be getting married anyways.

Here's the way I look at it:

Marriage is a committment for life. While a divorce may become necessary, it is the last resort. If marriage is a committment for life, one should not make that committment to someone they do not trust. If they do trust that person, there is no reason to feel that a prenuptial agreement is necessary, unless there is no other legal way to do what the couple has agreed upon.

Prenuptial agreements, to me, are evidence of distrust in a relationship. If distrust exists in that relationship, the people involved shouldn't be getting married anyways.

I'll be blunt and honest here. Divorce courts in the United States are slanted towards the woman. Hell all the woman has to do is come up with a sob story, and she can really clean the guy out. I know at least 5 guys that got cleaned out by their ex's base on lies that she told to the judge. They're still paying for it in Alimony. One guy lost his house, his boat, his motorcycle, his inheritance, and now has to give a certain amount of alimony to his ex.

I don't think it's a sign of mistrust, I just see it as a way to prevent anyone whom I may be divorcing cleaning me out.

But at the same time there are rich women out there who end up with an entirely dependent husband and if and when they divorce she ends up having to give him half of her money due to a lack of pre-nup. It isn't just men who get cleaned out, but it is men you hear about more.

But at the same time there are rich women out there who end up with an entirely dependent husband and if and when they divorce she ends up having to give him half of her money due to a lack of pre-nup. It isn't just men who get cleaned out, but it is men you hear about more.

See, it protects both parties. So no, it's not a sign of mistrust.

I'll be blunt and honest here. Divorce courts in the United States are slanted towards the woman. Hell all the woman has to do is come up with a sob story, and she can really clean the guy out. I know at least 5 guys that got cleaned out by their ex's base on lies that she told to the judge. They're still paying for it in Alimony. One guy lost his house, his boat, his motorcycle, his inheritance, and now has to give a certain amount of alimony to his ex.

I don't think it's a sign of mistrust, I just see it as a way to prevent anyone whom I may be divorcing cleaning me out.
Very true.

I'll be blunt and honest here. Divorce courts in the United States are slanted towards the woman. Hell all the woman has to do is come up with a sob story, and she can really clean the guy out. I know at least 5 guys that got cleaned out by their ex's base on lies that she told to the judge. They're still paying for it in Alimony. One guy lost his house, his boat, his motorcycle, his inheritance, and now has to give a certain amount of alimony to his ex.

I don't think it's a sign of mistrust, I just see it as a way to prevent anyone whom I may be divorcing cleaning me out.
Actually, that's not true any more. It certainly was for a while, but since about the mid 90's there has been a serious backlash. I worked for a country judge in domestic court for a long while, and it's pretty amazing how strong the backlash really is. Things really were slanted pretty unfairly toward women for a while, but now they are slanted unfairly in the opposite direction because a lot of people are still reacting to that old situation.

Of course, things became slanted toward women in the first place because before THAT divorce used to totally and completely screw women over (they'd get NOTHING afterward, literally), and so there was a backlash against THAT.

Hopefully the pendulum will gradually slow down, swinging a little less strongly each new time, and eventually things will be totally even. But we've got a ways to go.

EDIT: And I forgot to add, I'm with you on the fact that I don't think pre-nups indicate lack of trust. For me, it's more about being clear with your partner about what you both think you're getting into. You both set down what you think your marriage means in terms of your incomes and property, and you make sure both of you agree on a system that you both think is fair. That's not about "mistrusting," that's about being clear and honest and open before you promise to spend your life with somebody.

Haha. I was thinking the SAME thing.

Just rich that you had the 'nads to post in this thread... :rolleyes:

The people of Rome demand a poll!

I don't think it's a sign of mistrust, I just see it as a way to prevent anyone whom I may be divorcing cleaning me out.

I don't know about the first part, but I agree with this part here. It's a good idea when there is a big difference between the assets of the two.

Actually, that's not true any more. It certainly was for a while, but since about the mid 90's there has been a serious backlash. I worked for a country judge in domestic court for a long while, and it's pretty amazing how strong the backlash really is. Things really were slanted pretty unfairly toward women for a while, but now they are slanted unfairly in the opposite direction because a lot of people are still reacting to that old situation.

Of course, things became slanted toward women in the first place because before THAT divorce used to totally and completely screw women over (they'd get NOTHING afterward, literally), and so there was a backlash against THAT.

Hopefully the pendulum will gradually slow down, swinging a little less strongly each new time, and eventually things will be totally even. But we've got a ways to go.

EDIT: And I forgot to add, I'm with you on the fact that I don't think pre-nups indicate lack of trust. For me, it's more about being clear with your partner about what you both think you're getting into. You both set down what you think your marriage means in terms of your incomes and property, and you make sure both of you agree on a system that you both think is fair. That's not about "mistrusting," that's about being clear and honest and open before you promise to spend your life with somebody.

Yea, hopefully pre-nups will slow down that pendulum.

Yea, hopefully pre-nups will slow down that pendulum.
I honestly don't know why there's still such a stigma against pre-nups. People who would ask me about the legal ramifications of a pre-nup would always have this guilty, apologetic tone, like they were doing something wrong just by asking. For me, before you get married, you owe it to yourself and your partner to do everything in your power to anticipate future problems and pitfalls. There's no way you will be able to anticipate them all, no way by far, but you should do everything you can with the things you can forsee. I feel like it's irresponsible to just say, "Oh, I'm positive our relationship won't ever end, so let's not even consider that possible outcome."

if your friend got "cleaned out" it its a reflection of the quality of his lawyer not the state of the laws in the US. if he is going to hire a lawyer so bad that he cant even get to keep his INHERITANCE (which is automatically kept by whoever inherits) then he wont get his pre-nup enforced either. there is probably more to the story that your friend didnt want to tell you.

for most people a prenup is unnecessary. if you start out with nothing, everything is community property and is most fairly split 50/50 (as happens in 99% of all divorces). if you have accumulated very much more than your prospective spouse AND if there is some reason why you wouldnt want your money to go to your spouse, then you need a prenup. if you have children that you want to inherit your money or other property for example, then you need a prenup (and maybe a trust).

anyone who, under normal circumstances, wants a pre-nup probably isnt worth marrying. they dont have the trust and committment necessary to stay married through the tough times.

No contract is complete without a written agreement about what happens when one party becomes dissatisfied.

Marriage is a contract, a pre-nup is just an addendum.

I personally like the notion of a pre-nuptial agreement, however it could rather spoilt the moment:

"Oh Roger, shall we be married?"

"Why yes Cecily my dear, right after you sign this....."

"Oh, well....":rolleyes:

for most people a prenup is unnecessary. if you start out with nothing, everything is community property and is most fairly split 50/50 (as happens in 99% of all divorces). if you have accumulated very much more than your prospective spouse AND if there is some reason why you wouldnt want your money to go to your spouse, then you need a prenup. if you have children that you want to inherit your money or other property for example, then you need a prenup (and maybe a trust).

The thing is, for the vast majority of couples there is going to be one person who earns more than the other. For many couples, there will be one person who earns ALL the money, while the other person does not work. This means that a 50-50 split upon divorce can get messy. Sure, maybe you can split the current assets...but what about the fact that one person has been staying at home with the kids rather than furthering their career? They are back to square one when it comes to supporting themselves, yet they certainly were contributing to the family this whole time.

And that's just one wrinkle. Honestly, it's really surprisingly complicated even for couples who don't have much money when they marry. It's also VERY VERY STUPID to think that just because you don't have much right now you will never have much. Things change, and (as I said) it's always best to anticipate possible contingencies.


anyone who, under normal circumstances, wants a pre-nup probably isnt worth marrying. they dont have the trust and committment necessary to stay married through the tough times.
Personally, I think it's the opposite. Anybody who reacts to a pre-nup in the way you describe is clearly lacking in both trust and commitment to the relationship. If you trusted your partner, you would trust that they aren't looking into a pre-nup because they're planning to screw you over, or because they don't care about the relationship; you would trust that they're doing it because they believe it's important and is a positive thing for your marriage. If you were committed to your relationship, you would recognize that your initial gut feelings aren't necessarily more important than doing what is right for your future marriage, and that your personal discomfort with this issue is not something that should stop you from behaving responsibly.

I'll be blunt and honest here. Divorce courts in the United States are slanted towards the woman.

Bottle already answered this, so I won't.

I don't think it's a sign of mistrust, I just see it as a way to prevent anyone whom I may be divorcing cleaning me out.

If you think that the person you are going to marry would "clean you out" in the event of a divorce, then you quite obviously do not trust them.

See, it protects both parties. So no, it's not a sign of mistrust.

The latter statement does not follow from the first. The fact that either party thinks they must be protected from the other is a very clear sign of distrust. If you trust someone, you have no reason to believe that you need protection from them.


EDIT: And I forgot to add, I'm with you on the fact that I don't think pre-nups indicate lack of trust. For me, it's more about being clear with your partner about what you both think you're getting into. You both set down what you think your marriage means in terms of your incomes and property, and you make sure both of you agree on a system that you both think is fair. That's not about "mistrusting," that's about being clear and honest and open before you promise to spend your life with somebody.

We may not be using the word in the same way. Prenuptials, to my knowledge, generally outline what will happen upon the dissolution of a marriage - a divorce - not what will happen during the marriage. If you truly think (a) you will need a divorce and (b) you will need protection from your partner in such a proceeding, you quite obviously do not trust that person.

The thing is, for the vast majority of couples there is going to be one person who earns more than the other. For many couples, there will be one person who earns ALL the money, while the other person does not work. This means that a 50-50 split upon divorce can get messy. Sure, maybe you can split the current assets...but what about the fact that one person has been staying at home with the kids rather than furthering their career? They are back to square one when it comes to supporting themselves, yet they certainly were contributing to the family this whole time.

And that's just one wrinkle. Honestly, it's really surprisingly complicated even for couples who don't have much money when they marry. It's also VERY VERY STUPID to think that just because you don't have much right now you will never have much. Things change, and (as I said) it's always best to anticipate possible contingencies.


Personally, I think it's the opposite. Anybody who reacts to a pre-nup in the way you describe is clearly lacking in both trust and commitment to the relationship. If you trusted your partner, you would trust that they aren't looking into a pre-nup because they're planning to screw you over, or because they don't care about the relationship; you would trust that they're doing it because they believe it's important and is a positive thing for your marriage. If you were committed to your relationship, you would recognize that your initial gut feelings aren't necessarily more important than doing what is right for your future marriage, and that your personal discomfort with this issue is not something that should stop you from behaving responsibly.
how could you possibly anticipate everything that will happen to you in the future and how you will feel about it when that future split comes? you dont know what you will have, how you will get it, how much it will be, how long your marriage will last, why it will end, what children you will have and what their ages will be when you get divorced. anything that doesnt recognize spouses as equal partners who end with an equal share of assets is unfair.

if i were to be getting married again, i wouldnt marry a man who wanted a prenup unless he had a good reason for it. the way the law is set up now is fair for most cases. you keep what you had before you got married, you split what you accumulate and both walk away owing each other nothing or, in rare cases, a few years of spousal support for those who werent working during the marriage. if there is a large estate that should be protected for the benefit of pre-existing children, thats fine. for other circumstances i would not marry a man who wants to make sure that i dont get what the law would give me.

if your friend got "cleaned out" it its a reflection of the quality of his lawyer not the state of the laws in the US. if he is going to hire a lawyer so bad that he cant even get to keep his INHERITANCE (which is automatically kept by whoever inherits) then he wont get his pre-nup enforced either. there is probably more to the story that your friend didnt want to tell you.

I don't remember reading anything in _my_ intro law course about inheritances being exempt from the join assets of the couple for the calculation of the split. You inherit something, it's part of your assets. You go bankrupt, you can lose it, just like any other asset you own.


for most people a prenup is unnecessary. if you start out with nothing, everything is community property and is most fairly split 50/50 (as happens in 99% of all divorces).


A lot of people do start out with 'something' though.

And even when they start out with the same _assets_, one partner often has a far superior _earning potential_. So the higher earner wants to keep their income stream safe in the event of disaster. Esp since if they didn't have assets going in, odds are they're not the type to save or accumulate them anyway so they _need_ their income.

Remember, most Americans are a handful (or one) of paycheques from throwing themselves on the mercy of friends or relatives or living on the street. It kind of makes things a bit tense about _any_ economic disturbances.

Moreover, _alimony_ can be damn right punitive. There may be reforms in this area, but I've grown up my whole life hearing the apocrypha about the "woman gets ungodly long lasting, high payment alimony." As Bottle notes, this was intended to compensate women who removed themselves from the workforce to care for their spouse/children. But with many relationships lasting 1-5 years, but there only being a single litmus for alimony...a lot of bad things happened.





anyone who, under normal circumstances, wants a pre-nup probably isnt worth marrying. they dont have the trust and committment necessary to stay married through the tough times.

That's an amazingly sweeping statement. Money and the big ticket items you buy with it represents the _part of your life you sacrificed_ to obtain it. Time is all you ultimately have. The time that a "non earning" or "low earning" partner spends has value too. People should make sure their mutual valuations are acceptable and agreeable to each other. They should stop and ask "what am I expecting the other person to share with me of their "sacrificed lifetime", and what am I ready to give up in turn?" To just blur over the issue and go "if you loved me you wouldn't think of such things" is (to my thinking) contempt for your partner and blind optimism.

If I start living with someone again, you can damned well bet I'm setting some sort of explicit financial/monetary terms...for the fairness we _both_ deserve. I didn't experience the lingering financial impairment discussed above...but I wasted the only major net earnings I made in my adult life on an ingrate. I said at the start "anything I have, I will share with you" and they nodded and said "me too" and so things went for a while.

And then they had issues with mistakes I made but didn't tell me anything about it (and said they deliberately withheld such information, to boot) and the first thing I know, "forever " or "a very long time" is "2.5 years" with five days notice they're moving out.

And they had the gall to say I had impoverished them, when I did the math and in fact, I had spent more money on them than they had on me. And I looked at _all_ sources of money coming in (gifts from parents, social benefits, wages, savings, etc).

I'm not offering open ended unconditional support of _anyone_ until I know that the _hope_ I have that they are trustworthy is proven by _experience_. Preferably _long_ experience.

I'm not perfect, but I was willing to do anything in my power to make things work, and in the end, I wasn't even worth an explanation of "what went wrong". (Yes, that sounds suspicious, I know most people who say they are "the victim" are distortin things; and I'll admit I did some things that hurt them badly and I wish I hadn't, but I own my responsibility there. But you see, I thought love wasn't "I promise never to hurt yoiu" but "I promise to do anything I can to make it right if I do hurt you, and to do everything I can to avoid hurting you in the first place". I kept my side of that promise, they didn't.

So frankly, I feel a bit insulted by your comments that my lack of unconditional trust marks me as a lesser person. Look around at relationships you know closely. How many are really happy ? How many are fully stable and based on the truly best efforts of both partners ? In my experience, damned few.

Mostly, humans fumble around blindly for companionship and only learn by repeated error (if at all) what they have to do to make harmony and peace and order the enduring outcome. And you don't get that by just refusing to address huge issues of "so how will this work in principle".

When I was the lower earning person, I felt like I was getting benefits I didnt' deserve from their sharing with me of money. It would have been better from the start if we had discussed what was "fair" rather than trying to live up to a generousity founded in the euphoria at the start of the relationship...the euphoria that almost always quickly fades.

If you think that the person you are going to marry would "clean you out" in the event of a divorce, then you quite obviously do not trust them.

I think it's just plain realistic to admit that the person you marry today may not be the same in 20 years. People change, particularly when we're talking about an entire lifetime. It's also as much about admitting that YOU might change.


The latter statement does not follow from the first. The fact that either party thinks they must be protected from the other is a very clear sign of distrust. If you trust someone, you have no reason to believe that you need protection from them.

Again, to me it's not about protection. It's about saying, up front, what you think is fair. There doesn't have to be anything antagonistic or accusatory about it. It's just saying, "I think this is a fair way to regard how we, as individuals, fit into our marriage, as a joint venture. Do you feel the same way?"

Of course, I don't think that admitting to the possibility that your marriage may end will in any way diminish the value of your marriage.


We may not be using the word in the same way. Prenuptials, to my knowledge, generally outline what will happen upon the dissolution of a marriage - a divorce - not what will happen during the divorce.
No, that's how I'm using the term. I believe that individuals remain individuals when they marry, they just are now two individuals who are building a life together. I think it is wise for them to be clear with one another about how they each feel their individuality exists within the marriage, including how their individual incomes and property may (or may not) exist within the marriage.

This ties right in with the pre-nup; if, for instance, we agree that when we marry all of our property is 100% shared between us, and that we are equal partners in the marriage, then we would probably agree that if (heaven forbid) we were to divorce we would then split our shared property 50-50. Alternatively, we might not want to regard all our property as 100% shared, and that might influence how we would want things divided up if we were to separate.

I've actually been thinking a lot about this kind of thing lately, since I'm in the process of moving in with my current lover. It's obviously not the same as marriage, but we're dealing with these issues of what is shared and what is not, what becomes joint property and what does not. I don't see it as an insult that he wants to talk about this stuff before we move in together. I don't feel betrayed or mistrusted that he wants to talk about how we would divide things if we decide to stop living together.

I see it as a responsible, loving choice on both our parts, to try to anticipate potential problems so that if we do end up separating we can try to keep things as painless as possible. He cares enough about me that he doesn't want us to be wrestling with these questions at a time when we would probably be angry and hostile toward one another; he wants to come to fair decisions while we both are level-headed and still focused on how much we care about each other. That way, if we do end up separating, we can at least maybe reduce the amount of hurt we do to one another in the process.

Put it to you this way: My dad always told me that, when he thought it was going to rain, or that there was a chance of rain, he brought an umbrella. Whenever he brought an umbrella, it didn't rain.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand? The "umbrella" is a pre-nup. The "rain" is a divorce. I don't see it as a sign of mistrust. And I will say this much: If I had anything worth a damn, I would insist on a pre-nup. If, say, I become successful in the future and were to get married in my 40s (say, my fiancee and I have had enough of each other, or God forbid, I end up a widower...that's just too damn much pressure) then I may well insist on a pre-nup. For now, I'll probably have no use for one. What's she going to ask for anyway, my PS2?

how could you possibly anticipate everything that will happen to you in the future and how you will feel about it when that future split comes? you dont know what you will have, how you will get it, how much it will be, how long your marriage will last, why it will end, what children you will have and what their ages will be when you get divorced.

You can't, of course. But I think it's responsible to try to anticipate everything you can. There will be plenty of unanticipated problems, so you should try to anticipate whatever you can.


anything that doesnt recognize spouses as equal partners who end with an equal share of assets is unfair.

I don't feel that way, and neither does my lover (we've talked about pre-nups despite having no intention to get married :P). There are plenty of cases where equal partners would agree that equal distribution of the assets isn't really appropriate. That's why it's best to talk about these things BEFORE you sign a life-long contract with somebody. You might be surprised at how their opinion differs from yours.


if i were to be getting married again, i wouldnt marry a man who wanted a prenup unless he had a good reason for it. the way the law is set up now is fair for most cases. you keep what you had before you got married, you split what you accumulate and both walk away owing each other nothing or, in rare cases, a few years of spousal support for those who werent working during the marriage. if there is a large estate that should be protected for the benefit of pre-existing children, thats fine. for other circumstances i would not marry a man who wants to make sure that i dont get what the law would give me.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but it seems like your attitude is pretty much exactly the same as the people you're bashing. You are fixated on making sure you get yours in the event of a divorce. You just don't like the idea that your partner might want to talk about it beforehand.

I've actually been thinking a lot about this kind of thing lately, since I'm in the process of moving in with my current lover. It's obviously not the same as marriage, but we're dealing with these issues of what is shared and what is not, what becomes joint property and what does not. I don't see it as an insult that he wants to talk about this stuff before we move in together. I don't feel betrayed or mistrusted that he wants to talk about how we would divide things if we decide to stop living together.

I see it as a responsible, loving choice on both our parts, to try to anticipate potential problems so that if we do end up separating we can try to keep things as painless as possible. He cares enough about me that he doesn't want us to be wrestling with these questions at a time when we would probably be angry and hostile toward one another; he wants to come to fair decisions while we both are level-headed and still focused on how much we care about each other. That way, if we do end up separating, we can at least maybe reduce the amount of hurt we do to one another in the process.

I absolutely think you should discuss what to do in the event of a breakup. I simply don't think you need to contract it out. Are you and your lover writing up legally binding contracts as to how you will run your joint household? Or are you discussing it and coming to an agreement that you both trust each other to honor in the event that it happens?

I never meant to suggest that these things should not be discussed - they should, just as you should discuss a wish for children or not to have children - just as you should discuss what to do in the event of an unwanted pregnancy - just as you should discuss who will pay what bills and what assets will be individual - and so on. I just think that asking someone else to enforce it for you is evidence of distrust. If I think that my partner will honor the decisions we have made - if I trust that person - I have no need to ask Uncle Sam to enforce those decisions.

We may not be using the word [trust] in the same way. Prenuptials, to my knowledge, generally outline what will happen upon the dissolution of a marriage - a divorce - not what will happen during the marriage. If you truly think (a) you will need a divorce and (b) you will need protection from your partner in such a proceeding, you quite obviously do not trust that person.

What we're doing differently here (at least if I'm following Bottle's logic and so far i seem to be on the same page) is admitting that the best human ingenuity and the best intentions can fail against the unexpected.

I know a woman who had a partner for _twenty five_ years. They moved to Las Vegas. Her partner became an addict to gambling and cocaine and started destroying their net savings. The thing that emotionally devestated my acquaintance was that for _25 years_ this woman had been a good partner, and then suddenly....a critical weakness was exposed....and she was no longer the main priority in her life; the drugs and gambling were. And no matter _how she tried_, she couldn't lead the other person to change those priorities. She was smart, moral, and dedicated, and it did her NO good.

There's my own case where I did my best to be a good partner and my partner acted like he was happy and content. (Later he said no one knows when he's unhappy and he prefers it that way). Suddenly, 2.5 years in, he says he's moving out with five days notice. He's not interested in reconciling; he's not interested in even explaining what happened that is leading him to do this. (He cited various things in passing that all my friends agreed were contradictory; when I asked for a detailed explanation, he refused to give one, saying "sometimes , life doesn't give you the answers".)

I could understand that if he told me what was wrong, and I tried to remedy it, and still I was persisting in doign the things that were bothering him, then he would have reason to leave. But he had been making escalating professions of commitment, even finally saying he considered us married bar the ceremony (which should await better financial times).....and then he just totally turned his back and walked away.

I had a grandfather who literally "went out for a bucket of water and never came back". He was a pioneer (there was still a pioneer frontier in NA in some places surprisingly late into the 20th century) and Dad admits my grandma was an ornery woman who hated housekeeping and wanted to work in the fields and so that's what she did. (and she did raise an eldest daughter that Dad called "the most evil woman I ever met") Apparently grandad took exception to this or other things and left. Step grandad got along with her fine and was married to her for 45 years.

"You can't predict the future". How damnably true. So if you respect the other person, you will provide for "the worst case scenario" to show that however you may come to feel about them, right now you love them, and want the most agreeable and fair outcome _for sure_. You want it so neither person can be dragged into the duel of the lawyers and the games with truth that can happen when people are falling _out_ of love and do nasty things. And if they respect you, they won't be offended by your attempt to uphold the duty of care to them in _all_ respects of the relationship.

And if your idea of fair differs from the law, you should explain why, and see if it convinces them . if it doesn't, and their case doesn't convince you after it's presented at length......well...fair is pretty fundamental. If there are irreconcilable differences in the judgement of what is fair at the start, maybe you -shouldn't- be together

Needless to say, I think people need to talk a HELL of a lot more about _everything_ about married life before getting together. It's something people do with shocking casualness in my observations of other peoples' relationships.

You cannot promise ANYTHING "forever" to ANYONE. You can try your best. That's what makes a moral person. But that duty has more dimensions than most people admit.

I absolutely think you should discuss what to do in the event of a breakup. I simply don't think you need to contract it out.

Personally, I feel the same way about marriage.

I simply think that if you're going to get a legal marriage contract, it only makes sense to include in that contract a clear agreement of what happens if either party (or both) chooses to end the contract.


Are you and your lover writing up legally binding contracts as to how you will run your joint household?

For every legal contract we have entered into together, we have stipulated what happens if/when the contract is terminated. Hence, because we have entered into a lease together, we have included provisions for what happens if one person moves out.


Or are you discussing it and coming to an agreement that you both trust each other to honor in the event that it happens?
Why is this an "or" question? Both are the case. A mutual, trusting agreement does not suddenly become a horrible, antagonistic, devoid-of-trust attack when it is put down on paper. We came to an agreement about our legal responsibilities, and we included this agreement in the legal documentation of our arrangment.

If I didn't trust my lover to honor his agreement, I wouldn't want to live with him. I trust that he feels the same toward me. So why should writing down what we both agree upon be a sign of mistrust?

Personally, I feel the same way about marriage.

As do I. I just don't think you need to have someone else enforce the decisions you make together.

I simply think that if you're going to get a legal marriage contract, it only makes sense to include in that contract a clear agreement of what happens if either party (or both) chooses to end the contract.

A legal marriage contract is nothing more than a convenience. It does not make a marriage.

Why is this an "or" question? Both are the case. A mutual, trusting agreement does not suddenly become a horrible, antagonistic, devoid-of-trust attack when it is put down on paper. We came to an agreement about our legal responsibilities, and we included this agreement in the legal documentation of our arrangment.

If you feel the need to have someone else enforce it, then you don't trust yourselves to enforce it. Otherwise, there would be no need for a third party.

If I didn't trust my lover to honor his agreement, I wouldn't want to live with him. I trust that he feels the same toward me. So why should writing down what we both agree upon be a sign of mistrust?

(Grins) because (if I understand the core of the "other side") (and believe me, I am in full agreement with you) "if you talk about it, it means you think it's going to happen". You're reminding them people are fallible and imperfect and sometimes do evil things; sometimes with provocation, sometimes without.

This disturbs most people, I think. Reminding them that we are not the flawless architects of our destiny, our reason leading us inexorably to our dreams. We are a tiny force of sanity guiding contradictory and powerful emotions, and when the feelings aroused by sex and togetherness are involved, _anything_ can happen.

Control is an illusion; maximizing your influence on the future is not.

As do I. I just don't think you need to have someone else enforce the decisions you make together.

I don't think it would be about having somebody else enforce the decisions. For me, it's more about helping me to remember that I agreed to this arrangment because I believed it was fair. Instead of it being me versus my partner, it's both of us being held to an agreement we made back when we were not angry and breaking up. Back when we both had each other's best interests at the front of our minds.


A legal marriage contract is nothing more than a convenience.

Or inconvenience, depending...


It does not make a marriage.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. I'm not going to set myself up as arbitor of what is and is not a "real" marriage.

Plenty of people have marriages that are nothing more or less than contracts to them. Whether or not I approve, or would want that sort of marriage, is irrelevant. Their marriage is a marriage if they agree it is.


If you feel the need to have someone else enforce it, then you don't trust yourselves to enforce it. Otherwise, there would be no need for a third party.
But that's just it; it IS about us enforcing it, but it's about the "us" from right now. It's us at a time when we are NOT in the process of breaking up. It's us at a time when we each are completely committed to making each other happy, and trying to ensure a happy future for each other even if our futures end up diverging at some time.

I love my partner, but we are both human beings. If we were angry enough with each other to be breaking up, we would have to be REALLY FUCKING ANGRY. When I am very angry with my partner, I don't always put his interests first (duh), and I would rather plan out these situations now than leave them to a time when I might be angry enough to treat him hurtfully. I know I would hate myself for it afterwards.

I trust my GF completely, and I'm reasonably sure she trusts me. But if we ever got married, I think a well-written pre-nup could protect both of us. My income is much higher than hers, but she will inherit an excellent house from her mom. I'm sure we'd both want to protect our respectve assets, and we both know that "forever" doesn't always mean FORVEVER. Yes, we would say so at the start, but I'm sure my parents said the same thing, and ditto for her sister and the sister's ex(s).

(Grins) because (if I understand the core of the "other side") (and believe me, I am in full agreement with you) "if you talk about it, it means you think it's going to happen". You're reminding them people are fallible and imperfect and sometimes do evil things; sometimes with provocation, sometimes without.

This disturbs most people, I think. Reminding them that we are not the flawless architects of our destiny, our reason leading us inexorably to our dreams. We are a tiny force of sanity guiding contradictory and powerful emotions, and when the feelings aroused by sex and togetherness are involved, _anything_ can happen.

Control is an illusion; maximizing your influence on the future is not.
I also may be an odd case because I don't find it insulting or hurtful or distrustful to contemplate the end of my current relationship.

I want my partner to have the happiest possible life, and I am willing to acknowledge that there is a possibility I might not always be a part of that life. Things may change in such a way that we can no longer be happy together, even if we both are still good people who love each other.

I don't consider it a failure to recognize if a marriage or relationship is no longer healthy. Relationships and marriages always require work, and I certainly believe in trying your absolute hardest to maintain your marriage through the hard times, but that doesn't mean all marriages can be saved. And, if a marriage does eventually need to end, that doesn't necessarily mean that marriage was a waste! It doesn't mean the people were wrong to get married in the first place. It doesn't necessarily mean they failed as married people.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but it seems like your attitude is pretty much exactly the same as the people you're bashing. You are fixated on making sure you get yours in the event of a divorce. You just don't like the idea that your partner might want to talk about it beforehand.

given that it is the common expectation of marriage i WOULD want to know why a prospective husband wouldnt want it to be that way. there are good reasons for it and bad reasons for it.

its not that i wouldnt talk about it. one reason that people fail so miserably at marriage is that they usually discuss NOTHING before they get married. they assume that things will be run they way they want them to be done. its quite a surprise to find out that your beloved thinks things should be done in a different manner.

in second marriages between older people, there often ARE reasons why a prenup or a living trust might be appropriate. its especially important if you want your own children to inherit your estate (and if you want there to be enough estate left for them to inherit). if i ended up single and decided to marry again, there may well be assets that *I* would want to protect from the possibility of divorce.

it is probably well worth the effort to look into a prenup, not because they are a good idea but because they let you know just what you are signing up for. many primary earners are shocked to find out that they only get half of everything when they get divorced. a friend of my mother-in-law got divorced after 53 years of marriage. her exhusband was shocked to find out that she would get half of everything he "owned".

Pre-nuptial agreements are a sign of sanity and realism. While everyone agrees that ideally, a marriage is forever, we all know in reality, half of them don't last that long. Making reasonable, thought-out provisions for such an event before it happens is the best course of action to take. At worst, the pre-nup is unused. At best, it saves lots of emotionnal stress and makes separation of material goods easier.

Pre-nuptial agreements are a sign of sanity and realism. While everyone agrees that ideally, a marriage is forever, we all know in reality, half of them don't last that long. Making reasonable, thought-out provisions for such an event before it happens is the best course of action to take. At worst, the pre-nup is unused. At best, it saves lots of emotionnal stress and makes separation of material goods easier.
fine

what clauses do you think would be essential in any prenup you would enter into?

Jewish marriages require a ketubah, or marriage contract - basically a pre-nup. I have heard that Islam also requires them.

fine

what clauses do you think would be essential in any prenup you would enter into?
Basically, I would write down that what was mine before marriage, I keep. What was my boyfriend's before our marriage, he keeps. What we acquire during our married life, we split 50/50. Might also feature a section about objects that have high sentimental value, but little monetary value.

All in all, I would do that as a "worst case" preparation. I wouldn't really expect to need it, but I acknowledge the need to do it, just in case. Kind of like a testament; I don't expect to die anytime soon, but hey, like they say: "shit happens".