For the ladies. Would You Sign a Pre-nup?

[RiverRunning]

I think it's insulting to automatically assume that people are all the same, and that they all respond the same way when they're dumped.

 

I had an ex-boyfriend who treated me like crap. Verbally and emotionally abusive, manipulative...on and on. I had access to all of his school records, his e-mails, etc. I could have repeatedly signed him up for classes, canceled his student loans, deleted school homework. I know he kept compromising e-mails with nude pictures of himself (haha!). I could have forwarded those to EVERYONE he knew - his parents, his friends, his co-workers, etc.

 

I didn't do any of that.

 

No matter how he treated me and how angry I felt over his repeated behavior, I did not sink to his level. We were together for almost two years.

 

I think that feeling angry after a break-up or a divorce is normal. Being cheated on can make anybody angry. But I have made my stance and I will stick to it. I have my principles, and I won't abandon them.

[Radu]

I think it's insulting to automatically assume that people are all the same, and that they all respond the same way when they're dumped.

 

I had an ex-boyfriend who treated me like crap. Verbally and emotionally abusive, manipulative...on and on. I had access to all of his school records, his e-mails, etc. I could have repeatedly signed him up for classes, canceled his student loans, deleted school homework. I know he kept compromising e-mails with nude pictures of himself (haha!). I could have forwarded those to EVERYONE he knew - his parents, his friends, his co-workers, etc.

 

I didn't do any of that.

 

No matter how he treated me and how angry I felt over his repeated behavior, I did not sink to his level. We were together for almost two years.

 

I think that feeling angry after a break-up or a divorce is normal. Being cheated on can make anybody angry. But I have made my stance and I will stick to it. I have my principles, and I won't abandon them.

 

You can't possibly compare doing something that is borderline illegal and quite immoral with a pre-nup.

[Silly_Girl]

I think it's insulting to automatically assume that people are all the same, and that they all respond the same way when they're dumped.

 

That post-breakup mess happens a LOT. Even people who appeared wonderfully happy and had an amicable split can turn in to monsters. Time and experiences change people.

 

In my view a rational person who has seen splits and divorces a) realises the conflict is commonplace, b) is keen to have all issues in order so that - should the worst happen, and hopefully it doesn't - conflict is limited and both parties can move on with least amount of worry. It's not exactly future-proofing but I think it's extremely sensible in these times. I don't in any way see it as a suggestion that the new partner is nasty, like the old one.

[RiverRunning]

You can't possibly compare doing something that is borderline illegal and quite immoral with a pre-nup.

 

It wasn't the prospect of it being illegal that stopped me - but just the fact that no matter what wrongs he had done to me, and no matter how angry I was with him, I was done with him. No matter the feelings involved.

 

I don't blame folks who are keen on getting prenups, but it's just not for me. I wouldn't want to be with someone who asked me to get one.

 

Then again, I've never been with (and likely never will be with) someone who has that many assets that it's really much of a problem.

 

A guy who makes $50k a year, has no house, etc., asking me to sign a pre-nup? Right.

 

If he's making a few hundred thousand dollars a year, it's a different story. But I've never more than said 'hello' to someone who makes that much money.

[TheMeatloafJuggler]

Why the assume that the man makes the money?

 

 

I think, typically, if possible, most women would prefer to date a man who makes at least as much and would highly prefer that the man make more than she does. Most women want to date "up", not down and not across when dealing with socioeconomic status.

 

I think divorce typically will punish two groups the most - average men of average earning power and unattractive/undesirable women.

 

As Chris Rock says, if a guy has 100 million and he loses half, well it sucks but it's not like he's going to starve. But an average guy who has an average job, losing a large percentage of his fortune or earnings or savings can be devastating.

 

In the case of unattractive and undesirable women ( to social standards), these are women I suspect have a very hard time finding men of equal to greater earning power ( those men simply pursue women they find more physically attractive, many men simply care less about earning power and more about physical appeal in women) These women have no choice or high incentive to focus on their careers as the odds of a high profile/high earning male catch to court them gets progressively lower over time. These women have fewer dating options than their more attractive peers and the general dating pool for them comprises of more men with more flaws and drawbacks in general. My observation is if a woman with few dating options had to pick between a broke guy who she thought looked good naked and an ugly guy with a stable career and earning power, she will usually pick the better looking broke guy.

 

So I've met a lot of women in my life who have been hosed in a divorce. It's not just men getting hosed, but I think across the whole and on the average, more men are getting hosed than more women out there. But I do think there are growing ranks of women out there who are getting hammered by divorces too now. If most women want to date men who are high earning power, disproportionately to her, usually she has to be very physically attractive and can offer things like youth and having no preexisting children. As that women gets older, has kids and if she's seen as not socially attractive in a physical sense, then the most eligible of male suitors will simply look elsewhere for dating options.

 

A man with little earning power will have to accept dating women who can't offer much in the looks department, unless he himself has highly desirable looks.

 

A woman with little to offer in the way of looks ( to a social standard) will have to accept dating men who can't offer much in the money department. The more she's willing to float a guy and support him, the more likely she will have a chance at a guy who is more physically attractive than what she could probably get if looks alone were considered and the power of her money was negated.

 

My take on prenups is this. If you are worried about losing your fortune as a guy, then just don't get married. A prenup doesn't protect you from being hosed financially in a divorce. The only thing that can help you is to progressively pick the most physically unattractive career oriented girl you can. My take is also most women will choose whatever state offers them the most advantage given the time and place. Jessica Simpson is a good test case. When she was young, she REFUSED to sign a prenup with then husband Nick Lachey, who outearned her while singing in a boy band. But later, Simpson had more success, including her branded lines in retail outlets and it ended up that she outearned Lachey by a great deal by the time of her divorce. My guess is she would not sign while Lachey outearned her, but as soon as she outearned him, she probably would have wanted him to sign one.

 

 

• Madonna and Guy Ritchie
  
  
• Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillippe
  
• Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson
  
• Roseanne Barr and Tom Arnold
  

 

 

Look at celebrity instances where the female ended up getting hosed in the divorce, sans a prenup. The common factors are either age of the woman compared to the man, the woman was socially seen as less attractive than her male counterpart or the woman was socially seen as unattractive in general or the couple was young as the female had not yet asserted her financial peak yet.

[ASG]

Yes I would sign one.

 

In Portugal you can get married in one of 3 ways: Joint assets (meaning that whatever any of the partners brought into the marriage is now owned by both and subject to splitting in case of a divorce), joint acquired assets (which means that what you brought to the marriage is yours and yours alone, but any assets bought during the marriage is owned by both partners) and separated assets (which means that whatever you brought or bought during the marriage is the property of whoever bought it/has their name on).

 

My mom and step dad got married with complete separation of assets, so in case of a divorce the only thing they will divide is the house, as it was bought by the both of them and both their names are on it.

[Silly_Girl]

Yes I would sign one.

 

In Portugal you can get married in one of 3 ways: Joint assets (meaning that whatever any of the partners brought into the marriage is now owned by both and subject to splitting in case of a divorce), joint acquired assets (which means that what you brought to the marriage is yours and yours alone, but any assets bought during the marriage is owned by both partners) and separated assets (which means that whatever you brought or bought during the marriage is the property of whoever bought it/has their name on).

 

My mom and step dad got married with complete separation of assets, so in case of a divorce the only thing they will divide is the house, as it was bought by the both of them and both their names are on it.

 

That is a fantastic concept!

[hopeful4someday]

OK, there are many many men out there under the impression that women only view them as a walking ATM, and an equal number of women denying it, although I have noticed on dating sites a lot of waitresses, and kindergarten teachers with photos on their profile from cruises, and European vacations, and the first thing on their list of demands is that a man be "a professional", and "financially secure". How many of you would honestly sign a pre-nup that would give him all that he had and contributed, and you all that you had and contributed. This would include making his retirement, and equity in any property already in his possession off limits to you, as well as no alimony for either party. Of course child support is separate, but lets say your not going to have kids. How many of you would marry the man you "love" if he handed you this?

 

I wouldn't. I am a successful, independently financed woman, but I feel like a pre-nup basically says that the guy isn't fully committed. If I marry I'm in it for the long haul and I want us to have a basic foundation of trust. That being said, I wouldn't expect my future husband to sign a pre-nup either, even if I'm going to make more than he is.

[yessy21]

YES YES YES. but with conditions of course. WHoever cheats... looses..it all.

[jocy_20]

I wouldn't sign one either. I do not look at "you keep what you brought and leave with what you had" thing, it's unromantic and negative. Marriage is a union and everything you bring, you share, IF you love each other and be selfless.

[Gracie22]

I would. Absolutely. I don't want his money. Ofcourse it helps that I make plenty of my own money. That being said, it protects both parties. It's not romantic but necessary.