4 ms·

I don't know about you, but as a young female of the 20-25 group, if my husband made me sign a pre-nup before the wedding, it will pretty well signal the end of

I don't know about you, but as a young female of the 20-25 group, if my husband made me sign a pre-nup before the wedding, it will pretty well signal the end of the relationship. It will be interpreted as a sign of "if you don't trust me with everything, i can't trust you with anything." 20-somethings believe in "life long marriage".

greml1n 17y ago
I know three 20-somethings pairs that are still paying off their weddings after getting divorced.
- nostrademons 17y ago
  I know one who, along with her current husband, is raising her ex-husband's ex-wife's daughter. Mom is 27, dad is 25, kid is 12, and she's not biologically related to either custodial parent.
- Chocobean 17y ago
  ouch. Yeah, getting into debt to pay for a day of partying is a stupid idea, especially in your 20s, regardless of if your marriage lasts. [My will says that my burial/funeral is not to cost more than what i paid for my wedding, which, with rings, is less than a thousand dollars. With inflation, good luck to whoever is stuck with my dead corpse. Most likely by then the only thing $1000 will get you is a straw mat.]
jdbeast00 17y ago
this is the dilemma. if a guy asks for a prenup, he's a heartless jerk. if he doesn't, he risks a huge exposure in the future. lets start a poll: would you want a pre-nup?
- gscott 17y ago
  It could work out the other way. Men can get alimony as well. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120700651883978623-wVJmjFPLBLW_KzzQgks74c0dSks_20080501.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120700651883978623-wV...
invisible 17y ago
I believe 'we' (20-somethings) should be required to sign pre-nups by the state to receive a marriage license. Or a standard one should be provided upon marriage. It's silly to sign a legal contract with another individual (however in love the two are) without any concern over financial obligation. That's stupid, not selfish/"expecting the worse." People change by health, hormones, situations, and children. That is a fact.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- gaius 17y ago
  But it is the State's interference in marriage that is the problem!
granular 17y ago
> if my husband made me sign a pre-nup before the > wedding, it will pretty well signal the end of > the relationship. You don't seem to understand. The legal system in the USA is currently configured to crush fathers. A pre-nup is not a way to say, "hey, I want to be able to leave you and the kids and not pay a dime!", it's a way to limit the soul-crushing damage the legal system will do to Dad when Mom decides he's not making enough money and wants a divorce, and the kids, and the house, and child support, and alimony.
- Chocobean 17y ago
  Sir, of course I understand the crushing realities of divorce. My original point is this : when you're 20, you do not consider divorce; when you're 20, you think marriage is forever.
jrockway 17y ago
I'm a guy in the same age group as you, and I totally agree. If I didn't trust my (hypothetical) wife absolutely, I would never marry her. When I decide to marry someone, I am not going to treat her like a security or an asset or some other financial instrument -- she's a human being. I think the concept of a pre-nup is evil and derogatory, even given the state of the current legal system. (I don't agree with the "the guy always gets fucked" BS either; my parents are divorced, and my dad got off just fine. He didn't even have a very good lawyer.) I think, basically, people make dumb decisions when they should make smart ones. Buying a house, getting married, writing a book, etc. are not things that you can rush because you really want to get them done. They take time. The people that get screwed when doing these things didn't invest enough time.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- berntb 17y ago
  I'm not certain I disagree here, but you can make an argument that you're optimistic. >> When I decide to marry someone, I am not going to treat her like a security or an asset or some other financial instrument -- she's a human being Historically, what has failed most often? Securities or human beings? I'd bet on humans. A friend's friend got problems a decade ago -- wife left him, his company crashed etc. A while later, he was diagnosed with whiplash (I think, could have been mild brain damage) from a traffic accident. He probably can't work hard again, but has managed to build quite a good life. I can tell you that I had (amongst other effects) something like personality changes when I had a painless tooth infection for quite a while. Things like that are probably more common than we think. Even if you could guarantee your emotional state for years to come, I doubt you can plan for changes like that. Usually, we tend to think of people as too static. Fan of Catalyst, by the way.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Even if you could guarantee your emotional state for years to come, I doubt you can plan for changes like that. Usually, we tend to think of people as too static. Sure. But is it a good idea to protect yourself from an unlikely event in the future at the expense of hurting your partner right now?
gaius 17y ago
20-somethings believe in "life long marriage". EVERYONE is in love when they get married. EVERYONE says "for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, 'til death do us part".
__david__ 17y ago
Yeah, I thought that too when I got married at your age. When I got divorced 5 years later I found out some legal details that made me rethink that position. Specifically, I found that even though my wife was a reasonable person and our split fairly amicable (as much as these things can be) that I wasn't necessarily off the hook for alimony. According to my understanding of California law, the judge can look at my divorce case and if he thinks my ex's income is too low compared to the mine then he can award her alimony even though it was not requested by her. That opened my eyes and I saw pre-nups in a new light: They are just writing your own personal divorce laws so that you can be sure they are "fair" in your own eyes--They are not a sign of distrust. It's like signing a confidentiality agreement in business. One party isn't assuming you're going to break the agreement, they're just spelling out the terms so everything is on the table.
electromagnetic 17y ago
The fact of the matter is that a pre-nup is invalidated simply by you being forced to sign it under any form of duress. You really love the guy, but he want's a pre-nup and you definitely don't, well if you have proof of that (witnesses, etc.) it's a cinch to have the pre-nup invalidated. Also, to the people who've responded to you and elsewhere that prenuptial's should be forced by the government; well they're already invalid. Forcing someone to sign a legal contract to do something considered a basic human right (it's considered a social right to get married) automatically invalidates a prenuptial that has to legally be entered voluntarily by both parties. Such ignorance of prenuptial law is probably why a huge amount of prenuptial's are invalidated by judges.

greml1n 17y ago

I know three 20-somethings pairs that are still paying off their weddings after getting divorced.

nostrademons 17y ago
I know one who, along with her current husband, is raising her ex-husband's ex-wife's daughter. Mom is 27, dad is 25, kid is 12, and she's not biologically related to either custodial parent.
Chocobean 17y ago
ouch. Yeah, getting into debt to pay for a day of partying is a stupid idea, especially in your 20s, regardless of if your marriage lasts. [My will says that my burial/funeral is not to cost more than what i paid for my wedding, which, with rings, is less than a thousand dollars. With inflation, good luck to whoever is stuck with my dead corpse. Most likely by then the only thing $1000 will get you is a straw mat.]

jdbeast00 17y ago

this is the dilemma. if a guy asks for a prenup, he's a heartless jerk. if he doesn't, he risks a huge exposure in the future. lets start a poll: would you want a pre-nup?

gscott 17y ago
It could work out the other way. Men can get alimony as well. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120700651883978623-wVJmjFPLBLW_KzzQgks74c0dSks_20080501.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120700651883978623-wV...

invisible 17y ago

I believe 'we' (20-somethings) should be required to sign pre-nups by the state to receive a marriage license. Or a standard one should be provided upon marriage. It's silly to sign a legal contract with another individual (however in love the two are) without any concern over financial obligation. That's stupid, not selfish/"expecting the worse." People change by health, hormones, situations, and children. That is a fact.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
gaius 17y ago
But it is the State's interference in marriage that is the problem!

granular 17y ago

> if my husband made me sign a pre-nup before the > wedding, it will pretty well signal the end of > the relationship. You don't seem to understand. The legal system in the USA is currently configured to crush fathers. A pre-nup is not a way to say, "hey, I want to be able to leave you and the kids and not pay a dime!", it's a way to limit the soul-crushing damage the legal system will do to Dad when Mom decides he's not making enough money and wants a divorce, and the kids, and the house, and child support, and alimony.

Chocobean 17y ago
Sir, of course I understand the crushing realities of divorce. My original point is this : when you're 20, you do not consider divorce; when you're 20, you think marriage is forever.

jrockway 17y ago

I'm a guy in the same age group as you, and I totally agree. If I didn't trust my (hypothetical) wife absolutely, I would never marry her. When I decide to marry someone, I am not going to treat her like a security or an asset or some other financial instrument -- she's a human being. I think the concept of a pre-nup is evil and derogatory, even given the state of the current legal system. (I don't agree with the "the guy always gets fucked" BS either; my parents are divorced, and my dad got off just fine. He didn't even have a very good lawyer.) I think, basically, people make dumb decisions when they should make smart ones. Buying a house, getting married, writing a book, etc. are not things that you can rush because you really want to get them done. They take time. The people that get screwed when doing these things didn't invest enough time.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
berntb 17y ago
I'm not certain I disagree here, but you can make an argument that you're optimistic. >> When I decide to marry someone, I am not going to treat her like a security or an asset or some other financial instrument -- she's a human being Historically, what has failed most often? Securities or human beings? I'd bet on humans. A friend's friend got problems a decade ago -- wife left him, his company crashed etc. A while later, he was diagnosed with whiplash (I think, could have been mild brain damage) from a traffic accident. He probably can't work hard again, but has managed to build quite a good life. I can tell you that I had (amongst other effects) something like personality changes when I had a painless tooth infection for quite a while. Things like that are probably more common than we think. Even if you could guarantee your emotional state for years to come, I doubt you can plan for changes like that. Usually, we tend to think of people as too static. Fan of Catalyst, by the way.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Even if you could guarantee your emotional state for years to come, I doubt you can plan for changes like that. Usually, we tend to think of people as too static. Sure. But is it a good idea to protect yourself from an unlikely event in the future at the expense of hurting your partner right now?

gaius 17y ago

20-somethings believe in "life long marriage". EVERYONE is in love when they get married. EVERYONE says "for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, 'til death do us part".

__david__ 17y ago

Yeah, I thought that too when I got married at your age. When I got divorced 5 years later I found out some legal details that made me rethink that position. Specifically, I found that even though my wife was a reasonable person and our split fairly amicable (as much as these things can be) that I wasn't necessarily off the hook for alimony. According to my understanding of California law, the judge can look at my divorce case and if he thinks my ex's income is too low compared to the mine then he can award her alimony even though it was not requested by her. That opened my eyes and I saw pre-nups in a new light: They are just writing your own personal divorce laws so that you can be sure they are "fair" in your own eyes--They are not a sign of distrust. It's like signing a confidentiality agreement in business. One party isn't assuming you're going to break the agreement, they're just spelling out the terms so everything is on the table.

electromagnetic 17y ago

The fact of the matter is that a pre-nup is invalidated simply by you being forced to sign it under any form of duress. You really love the guy, but he want's a pre-nup and you definitely don't, well if you have proof of that (witnesses, etc.) it's a cinch to have the pre-nup invalidated. Also, to the people who've responded to you and elsewhere that prenuptial's should be forced by the government; well they're already invalid. Forcing someone to sign a legal contract to do something considered a basic human right (it's considered a social right to get married) automatically invalidates a prenuptial that has to legally be entered voluntarily by both parties. Such ignorance of prenuptial law is probably why a huge amount of prenuptial's are invalidated by judges.