4 ms·

A friend of mine got married with a pre-nup. He also married a woman with dramatically less assets. His reasoning was simply that /not/ having a pre-nup introd

A friend of mine got married with a pre-nup. He also married a woman with dramatically less assets. His reasoning was simply that /not/ having a pre-nup introduces a negative incentive to the relationship. Every time they have an argument, his wife could think "If I dump this jerk, I make $X!". So it's not about planning for disaster, it's about /avoiding/ disaster. That seemed like a reasonable argument to me. His fiancee obviously disagreed, but he wore her down.

Jtsummers 10y ago
The argument, to her, would likely sound like, "I don't think you really want me. So sign this pre-nup and prove it." It displays a lack of trust and faith in the partner. Without that faith, what's the point of getting married?
- hendersoon 10y ago
  Oh absolutely, to both of your points. It reportedly was not a fun conversation, but they got past it.
- belorn 10y ago
  If both parties has complete faith, then the existence of the pre-nup is irrelevant. it would be like signing a paper in the event that the sun burns out and the earth explodes. The argument, to him, would sound like "I don't think you expect this marriage to last. Refuse to sign this pre-nup and prove that you intend to issue divorce in a few years".
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    I agree. IF both parties have faith it's irrelevant. But when one party is pushing it, it demonstrates a lack of faith. I understand it when your assets are particularly valuable (pre-marriage). I understand that it can be used to ensure an easy (easier) divorce, in the worst case. But the post I was responding to, the man figured that without the pre-nup she'd always be thinking, "I can leave and take half." That indicates that he has no faith in her, not the other way around. Making that case will ruin her faith in him and will ruin (or has a high likelihood to) the relationship.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Every time they have an argument, his wife could think "If I dump this jerk, I make $X!". That tells us how he thinks, but not much about the thought process of his wife.

Jtsummers 10y ago

The argument, to her, would likely sound like, "I don't think you really want me. So sign this pre-nup and prove it." It displays a lack of trust and faith in the partner. Without that faith, what's the point of getting married?

hendersoon 10y ago
Oh absolutely, to both of your points. It reportedly was not a fun conversation, but they got past it.
belorn 10y ago
If both parties has complete faith, then the existence of the pre-nup is irrelevant. it would be like signing a paper in the event that the sun burns out and the earth explodes. The argument, to him, would sound like "I don't think you expect this marriage to last. Refuse to sign this pre-nup and prove that you intend to issue divorce in a few years".
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  I agree. IF both parties have faith it's irrelevant. But when one party is pushing it, it demonstrates a lack of faith. I understand it when your assets are particularly valuable (pre-marriage). I understand that it can be used to ensure an easy (easier) divorce, in the worst case. But the post I was responding to, the man figured that without the pre-nup she'd always be thinking, "I can leave and take half." That indicates that he has no faith in her, not the other way around. Making that case will ruin her faith in him and will ruin (or has a high likelihood to) the relationship.

anigbrowl 10y ago

Every time they have an argument, his wife could think "If I dump this jerk, I make $X!". That tells us how he thinks, but not much about the thought process of his wife.