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.