Prenuptial - good or bad?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>LL,</p>

<p>I did not think I sound like Nude; perhaps you can explain.</p>

<p><em>Are you saying that you have an "open" relationship? </em>I suppose I can say "yes", in our own definition. Further simplification: "win-win".</p>
 
<p>Oh gosh...</p>

<p>I would have to think that talking about having an open relationship would be much more difficult than bringing up the topic of a prenup.</p>

<p>But, as long as someone wins ... and in your case, both wins. So, I guess it's all good. </p>
 
<p>LL,</p>

<p>win-win = happy. Happy should be the main goal to get married. People split because they are no longer happy together. I just can not see how a pre-nup contribute to mutual happiness. You must pick your mate very wisely.</p>
 
<p>Funny people equated preparedness with doubt. I view a pre-nup very similarly to the kind decisions that must be made and documented when a couple goes the route of invitro fertilization for children. The pre-nup does two things IMHO: 1) in encourages the full disclosure discussions that need to occur 2) it protects both parties and future children from unforseen vagaries of life (alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling addiction, etc.). </p>

<p>While the union is both for the ups and downs, sometimes, sh*t happens. When it does, having it already decided, prevents the giant irrational wars custody and compensation often become in divorce.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>My experience, it wasn't easy. BUT I said if things happen (death, addiction, incapicitation), this will protect the both of us. I said i'm not planning for it, i'm just being prepared from what i don't know will happen. Of course, as a woman, she freaked out and let her emotions get the better of her. It took a long time to get her to come around. Now if either one of us is not in the picture (death, addiction, incapicitation) we won't get stuck with the other's debt/burdens. She's thankful for that now, but it took alot of work just to overcome her knee-jerk reaction. </p>

<p>Anyways good luck</p>

<p>-bix</p>
 
<p>I wonder if a prospective husband would be so willing to sign a custody agreement for future kids in exchange for a prospective wife signing a prenup?</p>

<p>Since prenup is about assets, and Moms/wives generally value their kids as assets, wouldn't it be a fair trade? </p>

<p>Let's say husband to be is worth 1 mil, and wife to be is worth $100K because she is 10 years younger. She agrees to sign prenup if husband agrees to sign future custody agreement as 72% hers and 28% his. Of course legally this is unenforceable since kids aren't born yet. But if he renegs on the custody agreement, she can reneg on the prenup.</p>

<p>Remember the rule in California about supporting the wife who has custody of kids.</p>

<p>Guys what do you think?</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Guys wanting children custody is only in the movie for dramatic effects, IMO; there is no harder job than raising and taking care of children.</p>

<p>Moms out there, What do you think?</p>
 
<p>I don't believe in using children as leverage for anything, and I would not certainly treat my future children as mere assets. Custody should just go to whomever can continue to provide a healthy, stable life for the children, whether this be only one parent or a combination of both.</p>

<p>I definitely support custodial aid. </p>

<p>However, this guy doesn't think that a husband should have to give up potential custody of his children in exchange for a wife signing a prenup. The prenup is not asking the wife to give up anything that is not hers, anyway. </p>

<p>And, again ... I have no disagreements with everything being shared 50/50 <u>while two people are married</u>. And, I have no disagreement with everything being split 50/50 that was <u>acquired during the marriage</u>. I just don't think it is necessarily fair that one should have to support their spouse <u>after</u> a divorice (assuming no children are involved). Supporting the children via custodial payments is a whole other issue.</p>

<p>And, again, we've seen many examples of how husbands have benefitted from their wives when there is no prenup, so this is not an attack on females at all! </p>
 
<p><em>I don't believe in using children as leverage for anything, and I would not certainly treat my future children as mere assets.</em></p>

<p>Ditto. To me, a proposed 72/28 split pretty much screams, two babies and an 18 year financial security blanket.</p>
 
If there are no kids involved, then the perfect solution is not getting married at all. Since there is so much concern about what will happen after a divorce and the probability of such occurrence is greater than 66%, then there is really no point of getting into this scenario in the first place. Living together with no strings attached is a good option so either party is free to walk away should he or she wants out. There is no pre-nuptial or messy aftermath to deal with. When you don’t want getting hurt in your feeling or financial asset, the best protection is not to give at all. Why take the step to the aisle while at the same time, already planning a safe retrieval?
 
<p>Max -</p>

<p>Good points, although some will argue that there are many advantages to being married.</p>

<p>How do you feel if kids <em>are</em> to be involved? </p>
 
<p>Maybe this will work better? </p>

<p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070921/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_germany_politics_marriage">news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070921/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_germany_politics_marriage</a></p>

<p><strong>Glamorous politician wants law to allow 7-year itch</strong> </p>
 
My full name is Maxine but my friends like to call me Max. From the prospective of a professional woman who makes good money, there doesn’t seem to have any benefits of jumping into marriage, prenup or not. Monetary wise, if my potential significant half makes the same amount of money, then it will be an instant decrease of available money since Uncle SAM is getting to your wallet through marriage penalty. Also, according to statistics, even for a couple who both work, the wife still performs more housework and more chores so what are the fringe benefits? If a baby comes along, then the woman, now a wife and the mom, becomes also the primary care taker for the kids. She has to constantly juggle between family and her career. Either she will be exceedingly overloaded/overstressed or she has chosen (or really forced by circumstances) to quit her work. Some years later, her husband finds a younger version or due to some irreconcilable differences files for divorce. After leaving the professional field for so many years, now she can’t find a descent job. This is a bad deal due for women. So when man makes good money is thinking of a pernup, more and more women making good money are thinking; marriage, better not.
 
No wonder there is so much divorce. Is it just me, or does this subject seem to show how much people are considering their own best interest, rather than their spouse's or their family's? My wife gave up her career to be home for our children. If I behaved so poorly as to cause her divorce me, I would pray that I would have the sense to realize that I promised to put her needs above my own for the rest of my life. The way I see it, that means I would support her financially, and everything we have would stay with the parent who is taking care of our children, which would be her. I grew up in a single parent household as the result of a divorce, and from conversations with my parents, and some adult reflection, it is my opinion that their divorce was the result of selfishness and a lack of consideration of what was best for their spouse and family. Here is a concept: Before you get married, ask yourself, are you willing and ready to put your spouse's needs before your own? If the answer is yes, there is no mine or their's. There is only ours. Maybe marriage means putting an ideal of selflessness above practicality. I truly do not know how a marriage could really be a marriage with either party being so "practical" as to consider what is their's and what is their spouse's. Am I just naive in thinking part of marriage is both persons leaving such considerations behind with their single life? Otherwise, why in the hell bother?
 
ISM makes a good point. You don't want to think that getting married would suddenly change someone for the worse, but it does happen sometimes.





And, unfortunately, the situation Max outlined is not uncommon. I've seen a lot of professional women friends who have cut their careers short, or seriously limited their options, because they started raising children at about the time their careers would have taken off (late 20s to late 30s).





If Mrs. Awgee isn't patting herself on the back every day for making a good choice, she should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top