1852. Pre-nuptial Agreement or No?


At post 1850 Her Highness Miss A inquired, “How do love and money go together? Are they incompatible?” Money is but a tool for the implementation of love, a method of interlocking devotion of one to another. On the other hand, love of money plus excessive love of oneself cripples mutual love one for another. But that isn’t what Miss A is after.

She also inquired about pre-nuptial agreements. Her Highness Lady Lurker gave the woman’s view as the man planning to escape with little damage in case breakup occurs. I don’t contest the woman’s view but express the man’s. A pre-nup protects the man against the worst case loss of half of his wealth and much future income. It seems obvious, neither side trusts the other based on the experience of other people.

  • I favor pre-nups only for what soon follows. Marriage occurs and I strongly favor it over all other forms of coupledom.
  • I condemn pre-nups; they enlarge the window for one spouse to betray the other. Rather than man-up and take the risk of judging his woman’s sincerity and commitment to him, men shred their woman’s dignity with lack of trust. Pre-nups facilitate breakups. They invite betrayal whenever spousal differences energize and compound disagreement into greater dislike and distrust one for the other.
  • It’s the man’s game. Pre-nup negotiation strongly favors the prospective groom. 1) He’s cognizant of his financial status and capability whereas she isn’t. 2) He’s less emotionally involved and can easily envision separation and divorce. 3) Any fairness included in a pre-nup depends on how his heart views her as a divorce opponent. 4) The prospective bride’s devotion to him makes her virtually incapable of imagining breakup. 5) Pre-wedding anxieties convince her to apply no pressure against his wishes, so she sees little need to protect her longer range future. 6) By determining he needs a pre-nup, his commitment and devotion weaken and reduce his interest to prevent future separations. 7) He uses anecdotes of men stripped by vengeful exes to question his prospective bride’s dedication to him, which—as a self-fulfilling prophecy—tends to magnify her wifely shortcomings.

In the end, a pre-nup underwrites his suspicions. He views her as possibly inclined or capable of dumping him for his money and divorcing him vengefully. Or, it underwrites the ease and cheapness for his escape from marriage. It’s a man’s tool to better orchestrate the man’s game of marriage with fewer obligations.

As women go, so goes society. They generated the need for pre-nups when some began to adopt feminist values, abandon their female nature, betray their man, and vengefully half-empty their man’s pockets. Consequently, women acting more like men shift dominance of cultural values away from females. Marriage weakens in both commonness and importance. Other women act more like men even though the true, soft-hearted female nature doesn’t host thoughts of betraying one’s man. By thus causing inter-gender trust to fade, women scuttle female control of cultural values and turn dominance of the culture over to men. It has dire consequences for women far beyond pre-nups, such as raising kids without a father present.

In any event, each woman is free to accept a pre-nup arrangement just as each man is free to propose it. Everyone has to figure out what’s best for them.

22 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter

22 responses to “1852. Pre-nuptial Agreement or No?

  1. Sis

    I can’t bring myself to like this post, it just makes me want to cry.

  2. Miss A

    Thank you Sir Guy for kindly dealing with this topic for me with great clarity and a balanced view. I see why you condemn pre-nup and that it is a man’s game. It is a man’s game because he wants to protect his greatest assets, which is his wealth, and he can with a pre-hup. These days I know that some high net worth women would also initiate pre-nup. But can a woman protect her true and greatest assets? Her true assets are not her money, or whatever she owns materially, but her devotion and love, which once given on the day of marriage, cannot be taken back. Of course pre-nup is not fair from the beginning, given that the woman does have those true assets to bring to the marriage.

    In my view, it is all very cynical and sad, but these issues cannot be ignored. One even suspects it’s a lawyer’s game in causing some of us to think that it’s just like buying insurance. What troubles me is that a pre-nup (or the recently popular post-nup) means instead of working towards ’till death do us apart’, which is high risk, the couple are more easily content with minimum effort, till things fall apart, which is lower risk. However, we have to admit that divorce is embedded in the collective consciousness these days, and one can’t avoid the subject. In fact, when we sign the marital contract, with or without pre-nup, there are indeed those fine prints that tell us ‘in case things don’t work, divorce is an option’.

    I also feel that inter-gender trust seems to be at an all-time low. My fiance sadly had some terrible experience before. A man wants to minimize the risk of being fooled twice, I suppose.

    Your Highness Miss A,
    You say, “Of course pre-nup is not fair from the beginning, given that the woman does have those true assets to bring to the marriage.” And those true assets aren’t negotiable so fairness comes only from the man’s heart.

    Imagine, however, what if women insisted that her man’s pre-nup proposal also stipulate that her love, care, housekeeping duties, mothering responsibilities, castle building, wifely duties, and sexual availability would be curtailed by some fair-to-both-sides adjudication? The ideas are endless, are they not?

    Guy

    • Miss A

      Dear Sir Guy,

      I am a little confused. Do you mean that the pre-nup is not fair to both sides, especially since it antagonizes and inspires the other party to list unrealistic requirements?

      Your Highness Miss A,
      No, it’s not fair to the female side, because she puts no restrictions on the use of her assets. What if her side of the pre-nup restricted sex to once a week? Or fixing meals to twice a day? Or requiring him to pay for weekly maid service? I’m merely speculating, but it seems such restrictions on her assets tends to increase the fairness. What say you?
      Guy

      • Miss A

        Yes Sir Guy, but the pre-nup will only be enforced in case of divorce… therefore only monetary issues apply. And the restrictions cannot be enforced pre-divorce (aka marriage??), which means all the things that women would want to restrict to increase fairness cannot be executed.
        I don’t know how so many people can enter into this kind of agreement without batting an eyelid. It is thoroughly depressing. But I also understand my fiance’s point of view – he is somewhat cynical about the marriage institution as enforced by the law because of bad experience. And he thinks I am naive for not agreeing. I can only go with my heart. But from his point of view, it’s just financial planning.

        Your Highness Miss A,

        I’m sorry you misinterpreted my tongue in cheek speculation. Forget the impracticality that you cite for a moment. And forget about your situation; let’s explore a theory. To get the deal a man wants in case of divorce, why shouldn’t he pay a price? Men count on womanly eagerness to marry and it enables them to get the better of the marital arrangement.

        So, what are some practical demands that prospective brides can inject into negotiations? Something other than money that men value? It doesn’t have to be practical to negotiate about it. For example, she demands they have three kids and he agrees to support them for life with money itemized in the pre-nup for their care and upbringing during and after any divorce that may occur. If he gets a prospective divorce agreement, why shouldn’t she? If he gets a contract, why shouldn’t she? If he gets to protect his assets, why shouldn’t she? Presuming, of course, their offspring are her assets until he takes responsibility.

        My tongue is no longer in my cheek. Why don’t women stand up and be counted? Women now take all the risk and men take virtually none with a pre-nup. Unequal sharing of risk is the height of unfairness.

        Guy

        P.S. We’re on different wavelengths because I’m trying to find something that might work, and you’re finding ways that won’t work. Nothing wrong with that especially when you’re facing the reality and I’m lost in theory.
        G.

        • Miss A

          Your explanation is much appreciated, Sir Guy.

          It is indeed the height of unfairness and an insult to marriage to propose a pre-nup. I am not the kind to go tic for tac in negotiating a deal, and that’s probably why I wasn’t tuned in to your suggestions. I simply can’t bring myself to do it because it doesn’t agree with my character and beliefs.

          I have come to conclude that it is better to know sooner than later that risk aversion cannot justify lack of trust or lack of commitment, even if one has had bad experience. One takes risks when one gets married. And I as a young never- before- married woman, I would have much more to lose that no pre-nup can ever protect…

          • Emma

            I may add this from a movie I saw awhile ago, similar situation and the bride to be was much younger. What she did was very smart and ultimately she was protecting herself.

            Because her soon to be husband was looking for ways to protect his assets w/o even starting the union she proposed her own Pre-nuptial agreement and adding clauses to his: this includes many things like family finances, childrens care and what if scenarios: infidelity. She closed the discussion with “if your love for me as your wife is based on this contract the I need to protect myself too”. I completely understand you may need to take a few days to review… The guy in the movie was dumbfounded to say the least, he could not believe what she had done. The important thing here was that she was ok to end their engagement of he didn’t agree; to her that was a preview of the type of relationship he was going have.

            Your Highness Emma,
            I’ve started compiling a list of possible terms for women to add to a pre-nup. Good example above. If you or anyone has other ideas, I would appreciate sending them to me.
            Guy

        • Some Other Guy

          I completely disagree that pre-nups are somehow unfair. Prenups are the natural result of the legal industry preying on men — using the law to forcibly take assets to support an ex-wife in “the manner in which she is accustomed”. The husband putting up the money to house the ex wife whilst her boyfriend is living with her. Or the ex-wife squandering child support on her luxury while vengefully withholding visitation.

          Say what you will about Tiger Wood’s affairs. I do not condone them. But I fail to see how his ex should have landed the millions that she did in the divorce. Were they even married for 10 years? Is divorce supposed to be a get rich lottery?

          For sure, pre-nups are not good for marriage. But pre-nups are just the symptom of the problem. The problem is our legal system confiscating assets, punishing men (and increasingly, women) for simply getting married. And let’s be clear as women gain financial means, this will start hurting them as well. And it will not be fair or right to them either.

          Sir Some Other Guy,
          You continue to add good common sense. You say, “The problem is our legal system confiscating assets, punishing men (and increasingly, women) for simply getting married.” But allow me to take the root cause deeper. It’s not for “simply getting married” but for simply not being able to stay married. For that, both sexes are more at fault than people who provide legal services.
          Guy

          • Miss A

            People today are increasingly selfish. It is a cynical system that undermines trust. You say, ‘for sure, pre-nups are not good for marriage’. Then why get married? If the chance of success of a marriage is reduced and tainted from the beginning because of negotiating divorce, then what is the point?

            Your Highness Miss A,
            You’re right to ask the question why get married? The answer is this: The female nature craves it, wives benefit from it, and children are better nourished by it. Men want it provided it holds promise to brighten their immediate future and meets their expectation for a comfortable resting and recovery place, his wife’s respect for who and what he is, and her likeability as mate and mother. Unmarried cohabiting lacks permanence for all those factors and the last stat I saw said that 80% of subsequent marriages ultimately end in separation.
            Guy

  3. Dear Sir Guy.
    Do you recall the thoughts in Dr. Pat Allen’s book “Getting To I Do” regarding pre-nups? I recall one of the stories in her book which rather handily worked through the contradicting energies that flow around this issue.

    Somewhere in the book she outlines a case where the chap had been badly burned in a previous relationship. Yet he found new love and didn’t know what to do. He asked for the pre-nup. Her feelings were very hurt by this. They struck a compromise. He (his advisor?) proposed a financial structure that changed over time, if fact disappearing altogether after a period of time. His fiance it seemed was sensitive to his past. She gave him peace by agreeing. He gave her peace by putting a time limit on the agreement. He was willing to be vulnerable to her heart. She was willing to respect his fear, respect him.

    I have been leafing through the book but cannot find the section where this couple finds the answer to their pre-nup question. I would paraphrase here because the key points might benefit many but I can’t find the place in the book.

    Has anyone else seen this in the book (Sir Guy?)? Anyone recall the details of how the successful resolution was derived?

    Your Highness An Avid Follower And A Lady,
    You may be referring to pages 196-197. The woman’s lawyer suggested the pre-nup expire after five years and the man was happy to do that.
    Guy

    • Thank you Sir Guy, that is precisely the section I had in mind.

      Now, I would like to go back in time a bit to a superb post that has been recalled on this blog at least once before, as far as I know.

      I believe that Hush’s reply, posted as reply number 2 at 1428. Boyfriend Soured in Marriage, should be REQUIRED READING for those attending the University here.

      Also, I would like to call attention to a critical highlight of Hush’s post. Hope Sir Some Other Guy checks in on this too.

      Once Hush’s husband-to-be was given the time, distance and space to FREELY choose and commit, his devotion to his wife was a natural.

      Sir Guy, you so clearly defined the process of falling in love for a man a few posts back. You said it happens in 3 stages, the LAST stage being when the man actually lets himself fall in love. Lots of things have to occur for that man in order for him to commit! It takes TIME!!! And also a long, chaste courtship. THANK YOU for showing the light.

      Your Highness An Avid Follower And A Lady,
      Thank you for the reminder of Hush’s comment. It’s still a thrill to read and Her Majesty Grace will enjoy starting her day by reading it again.
      Guy

      • Some Other Guy

        Wow, what a powerful story that is! My life has been so much easier than Hush’s. But my wife did exactly what Hush did. My wife would only offer me the goodies if I became the man that she knew I could be. Oh, and it took me 4 years to get to that point. My wife was getting ready to move on. I didn’t know that then. But she was prepared to ditch me if I couldn’t be what she needed.

        I believe that the most powerful part of Hush’s lesson is that we can all do what she did in other facets of our life. We can demand that others treat us as we want to be treated. If they do not, we simply quit seeing them. I have done this with my inlaws. They used to treat me with a certain disrespect. Not major, but it was there. It bothered me. I didn’t say anything to them about it. I just quit going to see them with my wife when she would go. They would always ask why I didn’t come to see them. It didn’t matter what excuse I gave apparently. For after a few times of not visiting, when I did finally go see them, they were much nicer and respectful to me.

        People treat you the way you demand to be treated. Don’t take crap from anyone. Be strong ladies.

  4. Lin

    Sir Guy, I agree on every single point made in this post.
    My favorite:
    “They generated the need for pre-nups when some began to adopt feminist values, abandon their female nature, betray their man, and vengefully half-empty their man’s pockets. Consequently, women acting more like men shift dominance of cultural values away from females.”

  5. Tica

    what do you think about older engaged couples (say in their 70s) getting prenups because they would rather their grown children from other marriages inherit their stuff instead of the new spouse? is this apples and oranges? jw your opinion.

    Your Highness Tica,

    Welcome aboard. It’s a great day when another pretty woman joins us on this cruise to WhatWomenNeverHear.

    Yes, it’s apples and oranges. In the case of elders, she has accumulated wealth of some kind. So, contracting to give it to their children (or someone else) is fair.

    Guy

  6. Cinnamon

    Sir Guy:

    I don’t know where else to post this question – if you have the time could you please address the question of multiple suitors for a middle-aged woman?

    If two or three Mr GoodEnoughs (all church-goers and appear to be marriage-minded) have expressed interest in dating the same woman at the same time, and she likes what she sees in all of them, how does she best handle this in an ethical manner?

    I have read a number of the posts in this great blog but I can’t find one on this topic. If you have written one could you tell me the number?

    Your Highness Cinnamon,

    Welcome aboard. It’s a great day when another pretty woman joins us on this cruise to WhatWomenNeverHear.

    As to your dilemma, be grateful. I’ve not written on it before. I suggest this now. Take your time, extend your patience, keep three balls in the air simultaneously, and let the two least likely to pay a big price for you (which means they short you on their devotion) find their own way out the door of your heart. If in the process one seems to shine brighter in your eyes, proceed cautiously before dropping the others. The pressure to get on with it when great opportunities appear often leads us to throw away our true best interest.

    Be patient, trust your instinct, and let them competitively expend much energy on your behalf.

    Guy

    • Cinnamon

      Sir Guy:

      Thank you. I certainly am very grateful for the current dilemma but I don’t want to make any major mistakes, and I want to be as gracious as possible at all times. You have taught your readers well about the virtue of patience and about what the signs of devotion are. Because of that I am prepared for what to look for.

      Could you please explain how to respond to the question of whether I am dating anyone else? It has not arisen yet, but I get the feeling from one of them that it is on his mind (he has hinted about serious intentions for the future). If he broaches the subject I do not wish to deceive. Is there a tactful way to avoid hurting a man or causing him to feel “less than” if a woman is not dating him exclusively at an early stage?

      I am worried that if he finds out about the others that he will take this as an insult or a reflection that he is not special when he is actually quite wonderful (so far), or even worse, that I am not taking him seriously.

      Your Highness Cinnamon,

      Remember, I’m talking about the male nature and use your man only as an example. You have to figure out how to handle him to your benefit.

      You say, “I am worried that if he finds out about the others that he will take this as an insult or a reflection that he is not special….” That’s how women think but not how men act.

      You say, “I am not taking him seriously.” (Woman-talk again.) He doesn’t earn the right to be taken more seriously than dating gives him, unless he extends himself to other actions that signify devotion, that he’s after you, and that he’s not just after sex.

      You’re starting to fear losing him, which makes you more vulnerable to loss. Keep the competitive fires stoked in all three men. If the one you speak of gets more hurt than ready to fight for you, then let him drift away. That’s how you refine your judgments for finding the best one. Wimps quit easily when they find they have competition. Stronger character inspires men to fight for what they want badly. And the strongest character won’t reveal their determination.

      If he brings it up don’t explain yourself and stick to questions along these lines:

      • Do we have a relationship that prevents me from also enjoying life with someone else?

      • Are you asking for my exclusive commitment to dating only you?

      • Have we exchanged promises of exclusive devotion yet?

      • Are you the only one entitled to my affections? Based on what obligation of yours?

      • Without our having exchanged obligations to only date each other, what expectations do you have for me? For yourself?

      Beware of deciding to drop the other two so fast. His words may fast talk you into hearing that he’s committed totally to you. Keep the ‘negotiations’ open until his actions prove his devotion. If you give him your loyalty without his working for it, especially volunteering it to please or keep him, he won’t truly appreciate it, which means that his respect won’t grow into devotion. If he doesn’t earn you with his actions, he won’t appreciate you with his devotion.

      Guy

      • Cinnamon

        EDITOR’S NOTE: I RESPOND IN CAPS to your lower case comment. Guy

        Sir Guy:

        Thanks for that eye-opening explanation. In my case, I sense that Man #1 hopes to move into a courtship mode at some point. I am not afraid of losing him, but what I am afraid of is him feeling disrespected if/when he finds out I am seeing other men.[YOU IGNORE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT FROM MY EARLIER COMMENT: “YOU SAY, ‘I AM WORRIED THAT IF HE FINDS OUT ABOUT THE OTHERS THAT HE WILL TAKE THIS AS AN INSULT OR A REFLECTION THAT HE IS NOT SPECIAL….’ THAT’S HOW WOMEN THINK BUT NOT HOW MEN ACT.” THINK MORE LIKE A WOMAN AND YOUR DILEMMA WILL TURN RELATIVELY MINOR.]

        Key question: As a rule, do men who are marriage-minded assume a woman is dating him exclusively unless she explicitly says otherwise? [NO! WHY SHOULD THEY? THEY DON’T THINK LIKE WOMEN THINK.] Do they feel disrespected when they find out she is not? [NO! WHY SHOULD THEY? THEY DON’T THINK LIKE WOMEN THINK.]

        This man (Man #1) is perhaps a little over-eager by my standards. I do like the romance and attention, but I feel he is asserting his male dominance by trying to move things along romantically a bit faster than I want (and no, I don’t think he is after sex, I do think he is marriage-minded). [BUT YES, I DO THINK HE’S AFTER SEX. MEN DON’T RUSH TOWARD MARRIAGE WITHOUT ULTERIOR MOTIVES. THEY DO RUSH TOWARD SEX FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THEY HAVE A SEX TARGET IN SIGHT.] Apart from responding positively but not overly so toward his gestures, I don’t know how to use feminine indirectness to slow him down. [TELL HIM HE’S MOVING TOO FAST AND DON’T EXPLAIN FURTHER. ACTING FEMININE IS NEITHER SUBMISSIVE NOR PASSIVE, IT’S BOLD WHEN BOLDNESS IS CALLED FOR.]

        If Man #1 asks for an exclusive commitment from me and offers his exclusive commitment in return (in terms of us dating only each other) how do I handle this? [AS YOU HANDLE ANY DECISION. FIGURE OUT WHAT WORKS BEST FOR YOU AND THEN HANDLE HIM APPROPRIATELY. I WOULD STILL SUSPECT HIS PRIMARY GOAL IS SEX.] I don’t want to date him exclusively yet. [SEE, YOUR INTUITION IS KEEPING YOU AWAY FROM MISTAKES.] Will he feel disrespected and deceived if I turn him down? [YES IF HE’S AFTER SEX. NO IF HE’S AFTER YOU.] I have no idea how to handle this and I have a feeling he is trying to steer things in that direction. [DON’T LET HIM STEER YOU. YOU STEER HIM WITHOUT REGARD FOR HOW HE LIKES IT.] How do I handle this situation? [STANDUP FOR YOURSELF FIRST AND FOREMOST. DO WHAT’S BEST FOR CINNAMON; IF HE IS UNWILLING TO ACCEPT YOUR DECISIONS, HE’S NOT MR. GOODENOUGH.]

        I am already feeling guilt because of the other men [IT’S EASY FOR WOMEN TO FEEL GUILTY; THEY OFTEN FEEL GOOD FOR HAVING DONE IT.] (It’s my response to the male dominance, isn’t it?) [I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THAT.]

        Man #1 is a very good Christian man from everything I have seen so far and he is definitely a candidate for Mr GoodEnough. [PERHAPS IT SHOULD BUT YOUR VIEWING HIM AS A GOOD CHRISTIAN MAN DOESN’T REVEAL ALL HIS MOTIVATIONS, SUCH AS SEXUAL CONQUEST BEING FOREMOST IN HIS MIND.]

        [GUY]

        • Cinnamon

          Thanks, Sir Guy. You are right, as usual. It’s too early for me to say yet whether he is a man of good Christian character, although I hope he is.

          I am beginning to understand more clearly what you mean when you say a single woman must be “hard-headed.

          • Cinnamon,
            My husband at the time was coming on strong as well… I told him to back it off. He did and it intrigued him. I was NOT like other girls.

            My husband only admits now when I asked him (he states breathing hard) marriage was NOT on his mind! This gentleman is right… hardheaded before marriage, soft heart afterward.

            Keep going! I know you can do it!!!

  7. amanmusing

    Sir Guy,
    I don’t disagree with you very often, but I do on this topic. I was also against Prenups until I went through a divorce I did not want. Now my future goal is to protect my assets and home for my children’s future. With the majority of divorces being initiated by women, men should protect themselves, just as women should protect themselves. The fact is, a legal marriage is a business contract, licensed and regulated by the state. Thats not the way it should be, but go watch any divorce court and you will realize that it very much is! Until No Fault divorce is done away with, and the courts are more even handed towards men, Prenups help slightly in leveling the playing field.

    BTW.. I want to point out, that prenups are not only for men, women should have them reviewed by an attorney and put their conditions/clauses in there too. They can actually be a strong tool for dialogue for a couple to discuss issues up front. In most states, about the only thing that can’t be included are financial support for any children born in the marriage, and custody. After 10 years, rip it up if you want, but go into the marriage understanding what it is, a legal contract that one person can terminate without the others consent or desire and protect yourself accordingly. People change.

    Sir Amanmusing,

    Welcome aboard. It’s a great day when another man joins us on this cruise to WhatWomenNeverHear.

    Thanks for your contribution. Points well made.

    Guy

  8. njncguy

    A thoughtful and perceptive write-up. Let me add another big picture point: In NOT having a pre-nup you ARE still effectively signing a pre-nuptial contract (just as much as with a formal pre-nuptial agreement in which you both physically sign an agreement)!!

    The “do nothing” approach just means the “contract” you’ve chosen (by default) is the state laws. The state laws will most likely make any divorce you have a nightmare (and potentially grossly unfair). Here’s why:

    1) The (state law controlled) divorce system is adversarial (with lawyers zealously representing their clients).
    2) State laws are gray.
    3) Lawyer greed (the more contentious the divorce the more they make).
    4) Potentially insane outcomes. … In N.J., 13 years of marriage can result in lifetime alimony (even if it’s for 50+ years). Who (man or woman) would sign a contract like that? Well you ARE if you don’t have a pre-nup (in N.J.).

    Also, a state law controlled divorce lets greed and revenge come into play as the divorce becomes a high stakes “war”.

    The ONLY way to avoid the above is to have a pre-nup (or just not get married). . I should know. Got divorced twice with no pre-nup. Both times the divorce was “war” and I got burned. My third marriage is quite happy and a large part of the reason is we have a pre-nup. With a pre-nup we had that (unromantic) talk about finances. We’re on the same page. Thus a pre-nup has been a key to our being happy. A marriage has a financial dimension you can ignore only at your own peril

    Note: I’ve said more in a blog of my own

  9. m3rry

    Dear All, this is a lengthy comment, forgive me, but I need some nuggets of wisdom please.

    My french boyfriend of 2 years had asked my hand for marriage. We both love each other, both in our 30’s, single, stable and ready for having a family together.

    Although we do not need to get married to be together, which we both like very much to happen for the rest of our lives, we choose to anyway because I primarily want to, and for him, he cannot have me legally stay here in France without this.

    However, there’s a hitch, he wants a prenup and I don’t. Here’s why we differ.

    He is French and has considerably more assets than me. In France, more than half of the marriages end up in Divorce. In most divorce cases, it is usually the woman who initiates it. His mother left him and his father when he was 9 years old. More to that, his parents are now happily with other people, and yet not married still, even after retirement…

    On my part, I come from Philippines, the only country left which doesn’t have a divorce. In the absence of divorce, people who need to be separated either get annulments or just separate without the legalities, but there is no option for remarriage under this. However, only 1.0% of our population identified themselves as separated. My parents had celebrated 30 years of happy marriage, and I’ve witnessed the rocky slopes and the times when my mother wanted to live, but didn’t. This worked out ultimately for all of family in the end.

    Coming from such different backgrounds, we need to compromise. But I hesitate to enter discussions with french lawyers about which percentage of the assets he can retain in case we get divorced. First, i will not be represented here, coming from a country with no divorce laws.

    But more importantly, my primary reason for not agreeing to all of this is becuase of it’s potential to damage our marraige even before it began.I fear treating our marriage like a business deal, and instead of partners, we become adversaries. I am uncomfortable with the notion of entering into a marriage with the prospect of Divorce already looming largely in the horizon. This step is by itself already slowly chipping away our marriage before it is started, and i think that because we are preparing for it, even putting it in writing and signing for it, then a divorce is more likely to happen.

    As a filipina, I put foremost priority in our future family and remaining intact, for better or for worse, and I have no motivation whatsoever to divorce from him so I can get the money, as most men would like to believe. It is an insult for me, and as much as we love each other, I am willing to turn down the marriage proposal because I feel that the marriage won’t work. I’ve voiced this concern to him but he cannot also reconcile the fear of being left alone in the future, with me robbing him off his money and children.

    I feel like I am preparing myself for marriage and he is preparing himself for a divorce.

    We both love each other but have such differing views, how can we reconcile?

    Your Highness M3rry,

    Welcome aboard. It’s a great day when another pretty woman joins us on this cruise to WhatWomenNeverHear.

    I’m deeply lacking in expertise and unable to advise, but readers may wish to respond.

    Guy

    • Some Other Guy

      M3rry please see the answer given by Njncguy. His answer makes tons of sense. Prenup does not mean that your man is contracting for divorce. He must protect himself. The prenup is a simply a good opportunity to have discussions with your man about these things. Besides it’s not like the prenup would be signed without your permission. You hire a lawyer to represent you. Your lawyer will explain all the legalese and will represent you, not your man.

      In fact the prenup is a great way to make sure that you are negotiating for your own interests in the best way possible. If you do not have a prenup, you leave yourself open to the courts to decide what happens in a divorce. A prenup ensures that you get a fair deal if divorce ever happens.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s