Another thought I had about prenups

[Cally]

The topic of abused women came up recently in a discussion, and something kind of dawned on me about this. There are resources for basically intervening to rescue women from their abusive husbands--I would think rightly so.

So I don't think this thought is terribly complicated. Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some? The sentiment is exactly the same, regardless about what this allegedly says about one spouse not fully trusting the other. That is, no matter how much a woman says she trusts her husband, I don't think too many mind all that terribly that at least SOME resources exist to protect her from her husband in a worst-case-scenario. A prenup is the same thing, given the high likelihood of divorce today (especially of a wife divorcing her husband) and a husband being enslaved by the end result of divorce court.

[chosenone]

I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.

[Cally]

I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.

Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.

If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."

Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.

[chosenone]

I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.

Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.

If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."

Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.

Both sexes should be able to get help if they are abused, I cant see its the same thing at all. Many women divorce their husbands because they cheated in my experience, not because they are fed up and want out. When you marry, in my opinion whatever either has, now belongs to both of you, there is no 'yours' or 'mine'. What was 'my' house is now 'our' house. So if you are rich and want to keep it all for yourself, don't get married is my advise unless you completely trust the person you want to marry.

I don't think that pre-nups have any place in a Christian marriage. If I didn't trust my husband to act with integrity and fairness what ever happened, I would never have married him.

[Cally]

I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.

Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.

If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."

Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.

Both sexes should be able to get help if they are abused, I cant see its the same thing at all. Many women divorce their husbands because they cheated in my experience, not because they are fed up and want out. When you marry, in my opinion whatever either has, now belongs to both of you, there is no 'yours' or 'mine'. What was 'my' house is now 'our' house. So if you are rich and want to keep it all for yourself, don't get married is my advise unless you completely trust the person you want to marry.

I don't think that pre-nups have any place in a Christian marriage. If I didn't trust my husband to act with integrity and fairness what ever happened, I would never have married him.

If we are all on the hook to completely trust whomever we marry (male and female) then resources for domestic violence shouldn't exist. It's the same reason law enforcement/police exist, because we don't completely trust our neighbors, etc. We call for the existence of domestic violence resources (biased heavily toward women, of course) because of the fact that wives don't have 100% trust in their spouses.

The "trust" argument falls flat. I don't believe a man or woman has the right to divorce his/her spouse except for marital unfaithfulness, but there are many "no-fault" divorces.

[chosenone]

I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.

Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.

If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."

Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.

Both sexes should be able to get help if they are abused, I cant see its the same thing at all. Many women divorce their husbands because they cheated in my experience, not because they are fed up and want out. When you marry, in my opinion whatever either has, now belongs to both of you, there is no 'yours' or 'mine'. What was 'my' house is now 'our' house. So if you are rich and want to keep it all for yourself, don't get married is my advise unless you completely trust the person you want to marry.

I don't think that pre-nups have any place in a Christian marriage. If I didn't trust my husband to act with integrity and fairness what ever happened, I would never have married him.

If we are all on the hook to completely trust whomever we marry (male and female) then resources for domestic violence shouldn't exist. It's the same reason law enforcement/police exist, because we don't completely trust our neighbors, etc. We call for the existence of domestic violence resources (biased heavily toward women, of course) because of the fact that wives don't have 100% trust in their spouses.

The "trust" argument falls flat. I don't believe a man or woman has the right to divorce his/her spouse except for marital unfaithfulness, but there are many "no-fault" divorces.

I am talking about Christian marriages here. If you know that God has bought you together with someone, then you should be able to trust them. Many people make stupid decisions, marrying people who they know are abusive or on drugs or who drink heavily or who have already hit them.

Also we should be able to trust God with whatever may happen in the future financially or otherwise. As in my husbands case he gave his ex the house so he had to rent a room in a house with other people, not ideal, but we met very quickly and married in 9 months, so God restored both a wife and a house in one go. He promises to restore all that we loose through no fault of our own.

[Cally]

I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.

Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.

If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."

Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.

Both sexes should be able to get help if they are abused, I cant see its the same thing at all. Many women divorce their husbands because they cheated in my experience, not because they are fed up and want out. When you marry, in my opinion whatever either has, now belongs to both of you, there is no 'yours' or 'mine'. What was 'my' house is now 'our' house. So if you are rich and want to keep it all for yourself, don't get married is my advise unless you completely trust the person you want to marry.

I don't think that pre-nups have any place in a Christian marriage. If I didn't trust my husband to act with integrity and fairness what ever happened, I would never have married him.

If we are all on the hook to completely trust whomever we marry (male and female) then resources for domestic violence shouldn't exist. It's the same reason law enforcement/police exist, because we don't completely trust our neighbors, etc. We call for the existence of domestic violence resources (biased heavily toward women, of course) because of the fact that wives don't have 100% trust in their spouses.

The "trust" argument falls flat. I don't believe a man or woman has the right to divorce his/her spouse except for marital unfaithfulness, but there are many "no-fault" divorces.

I am talking about Christian marriages here. If you know that God has bought you together with someone, then you should be able to trust them. Many people make stupid decisions, marrying people who they know are abusive or on drugs or who drink heavily or who have already hit them.

Those situations are miserable in any case, but women tend to have help available--men tend to have nothing. Yes, people tend to make "stupid decisions" but in any such case, that doesn't mean that some protection shouldn't exist if a woman unknowingly (or even knowningly) married an abusive man or a man married a marriage profiteer.

[DaveW]

Why is the idea of women being protected from their husbands acceptable, but husbands protecting themselves with a prenuptual agreement not as acceptable in the eyes of some?

Most women who seek protection from their husbands comes some time AFTER they are married, while a pre-nup BY DEFINITION has to come prior to the wedding.

Who would put a restraining order in place before the wedding?

[chosenone]

I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.

Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.

If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."

Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.

Both sexes should be able to get help if they are abused, I cant see its the same thing at all. Many women divorce their husbands because they cheated in my experience, not because they are fed up and want out. When you marry, in my opinion whatever either has, now belongs to both of you, there is no 'yours' or 'mine'. What was 'my' house is now 'our' house. So if you are rich and want to keep it all for yourself, don't get married is my advise unless you completely trust the person you want to marry.

I don't think that pre-nups have any place in a Christian marriage. If I didn't trust my husband to act with integrity and fairness what ever happened, I would never have married him.

If we are all on the hook to completely trust whomever we marry (male and female) then resources for domestic violence shouldn't exist. It's the same reason law enforcement/police exist, because we don't completely trust our neighbors, etc. We call for the existence of domestic violence resources (biased heavily toward women, of course) because of the fact that wives don't have 100% trust in their spouses.

The "trust" argument falls flat. I don't believe a man or woman has the right to divorce his/her spouse except for marital unfaithfulness, but there are many "no-fault" divorces.

I am talking about Christian marriages here. If you know that God has bought you together with someone, then you should be able to trust them. Many people make stupid decisions, marrying people who they know are abusive or on drugs or who drink heavily or who have already hit them.

Those situations are miserable in any case, but women tend to have help available--men tend to have nothing. Yes, people tend to make "stupid decisions" but in any such case, that doesn't mean that some protection shouldn't exist if a woman unknowingly (or even knowningly) married an abusive man or a man married a marriage profiteer.

If you think that a woman is only after your money, and aren't sure that she is Gods choice for you, then dont marry her. Many women who marry today have more assets than their husbands do, as I did. I had a house and he had nothing. Many women earn more than their husbands do as well. It never occurred to me to get a pre-nup because he is a decent godly man with integrity and high moral values. I also saw the decent way he treated his ex wife, by GIVING her the house.  He also doesn't believe in divorce(his wife divorced him against his will).

Also I dont believe in prenups because I believe that when you marry all that either of you owns belongs to both of you. If there is talk of 'your' money or 'my' money, or 'your 'house or 'my' house, then what does that say about your marriage? The two clearly haven't become one. The 100% commitment isn't there. Why cant you trust God for your future, rather than thinking of trying to protect yourself.

I agree that there is more support for abused women, but that's because there ARE more abused women.

[DaveW]

I agree that there is more support for abused women, but that's because there ARE more abused women.

Maybe - or maybe not.

"Abused men" is considered an oxymoron in this culture; even with "burning beds" and Lorrena Bobbit and other examples to the contrary. (of course those may be discounted as "self defense")

Men do not report abuse.  (no one would believe them or would be considered wusses or 'girly men')  So if it goes unreported, the statistics are going to be skewed.

[AVZ]

It would be good if people actually know what a prenuptial is before they argue over it.
See, a prenup simply is a description of which assets each partner brings into the marriage. What is acquired during the marriage is still subject to equal division.

Now you have people saying that a prenup is something unchristian.
Is it? What about the businessman who has a company with another partner who wants to marry a lovely lady with a hole in her hand?
Should the company possibly fall apart if one of the partners dies and their incapable partner takes over?

How about a family who has a trust fund for relatives? Should one of the in-marrying family members be allowed to tear up a trust fund?

You know what is funny?
We may all have something against prenups, but having a will is totally accepted.
Can anyone tell me the difference? I cannot have a prenup because somehow that shows I do not trust my wife, but I am allowed to decide what happens to my money after I die.
Well, to satisfy those who want to bring religion to the table...maybe I should do it the Biblical way and decide to leave everything I have to my eldest son.
I am pretty sure my wife and rest of the kids will get over it.

[chosenone]

I agree that there is more support for abused women, but that's because there ARE more abused women.

Maybe - or maybe not.

"Abused men" is considered an oxymoron in this culture; even with "burning beds" and Lorrena Bobbit and other examples to the contrary. (of course those may be discounted as "self defense")

Men do not report abuse.  (no one would believe them or would be considered wusses or 'girly men')  So if it goes unreported, the statistics are going to be skewed.

Thats true, but I think you will agree that when it comes to physical and sexual abuse the main victims are women. Just the same as most violent crimes and sexual assaults/rapes are carried out by men.

[chosenone]

It would be good if people actually know what a prenuptial is before they argue over it.
See, a prenup simply is a description of which assets each partner brings into the marriage. What is acquired during the marriage is still subject to equal division.

Now you have people saying that a prenup is something unchristian.
Is it? What about the businessman who has a company with another partner who wants to marry a lovely lady with a hole in her hand?
Should the company possibly fall apart if one of the partners dies and their incapable partner takes over?

How about a family who has a trust fund for relatives? Should one of the in-marrying family members be allowed to tear up a trust fund?

You know what is funny?
We may all have something against prenups, but having a will is totally accepted.
Can anyone tell me the difference? I cannot have a prenup because somehow that shows I do not trust my wife, but I am allowed to decide what happens to my money after I die.
Well, to satisfy those who want to bring religion to the table...maybe I should do it the Biblical way and decide to leave everything I have to my eldest son.
I am pretty sure my wife and rest of the kids will get over it.

Mutually deciding together with our spouses what happens to our assets after we both die is totally different. 
A pre-nup is preparing for what happens if there is a DIVORCE, and yes I do know what it is because my solicitor suggested that I get one when I married my husband. I said no. I am sure his intentions were good, (he had dealt with my previous divorce) but its not for me. All I have is my husbands and all he has is mine, whether we had it before marriage or we have got it after marriage.
If a person is so concerned about material possessions that he cant trust God or his spouse, then to me that shows something is very wrong.

[Cally]

I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.

Well, only if SHE divorces HIM. Not the other way around. Is that possible with prenups? Like, not providing for the case that he divorces her for unbiblical reasons.

If not, you're not seeing the double-standard: it is perfectly fine for wives to think "protection from my husband" but not husbands "protection from my wife."

Men have gotten destroyed by no-fault divorces. Occasionally it happens to women too, but it's a very real danger for men.

Both sexes should be able to get help if they are abused, I cant see its the same thing at all. Many women divorce their husbands because they cheated in my experience, not because they are fed up and want out. When you marry, in my opinion whatever either has, now belongs to both of you, there is no 'yours' or 'mine'. What was 'my' house is now 'our' house. So if you are rich and want to keep it all for yourself, don't get married is my advise unless you completely trust the person you want to marry.

I don't think that pre-nups have any place in a Christian marriage. If I didn't trust my husband to act with integrity and fairness what ever happened, I would never have married him.

If we are all on the hook to completely trust whomever we marry (male and female) then resources for domestic violence shouldn't exist. It's the same reason law enforcement/police exist, because we don't completely trust our neighbors, etc. We call for the existence of domestic violence resources (biased heavily toward women, of course) because of the fact that wives don't have 100% trust in their spouses.

The "trust" argument falls flat. I don't believe a man or woman has the right to divorce his/her spouse except for marital unfaithfulness, but there are many "no-fault" divorces.

I am talking about Christian marriages here. If you know that God has bought you together with someone, then you should be able to trust them. Many people make stupid decisions, marrying people who they know are abusive or on drugs or who drink heavily or who have already hit them.

Those situations are miserable in any case, but women tend to have help available--men tend to have nothing. Yes, people tend to make "stupid decisions" but in any such case, that doesn't mean that some protection shouldn't exist if a woman unknowingly (or even knowningly) married an abusive man or a man married a marriage profiteer.

If you think that a woman is only after your money, and aren't sure that she is Gods choice for you, then dont marry her. Many women who marry today have more assets than their husbands do, as I did. I had a house and he had nothing. Many women earn more than their husbands do as well. It never occurred to me to get a pre-nup because he is a decent godly man with integrity and high moral values. I also saw the decent way he treated his ex wife, by GIVING her the house.  He also doesn't believe in divorce(his wife divorced him against his will).

Also I dont believe in prenups because I believe that when you marry all that either of you owns belongs to both of you. If there is talk of 'your' money or 'my' money, or 'your 'house or 'my' house, then what does that say about your marriage? The two clearly haven't become one. The 100% commitment isn't there. Why cant you trust God for your future, rather than thinking of trying to protect yourself.

I agree that there is more support for abused women, but that's because there ARE more abused women.

There is more support for "abused" women and women who falsely report abuse too.

Another thing to consider is, what's the Bible's definition of "spousal abuse"? Husbands are told not to be harsh with their wives, but look at how many different ways Proverbs describes that a MAN can be the victim of his WIFE (albeit non-physically), and what is done about that?

Otherwise, here's something in case you want to get a little educated about what a married man faces:

Domestic Violence Against Men! [Mirror]

[Man_Of_Honor]

I agree that there is more support for abused women, but that's because there ARE more abused women.

Maybe - or maybe not.

"Abused men" is considered an oxymoron in this culture; even with "burning beds" and Lorrena Bobbit and other examples to the contrary. (of course those may be discounted as "self defense")

Men do not report abuse.  (no one would believe them or would be considered wusses or 'girly men')  So if it goes unreported, the statistics are going to be skewed.

Thats true, but I think you will agree that when it comes to physical and sexual abuse the main victims are women. Just the same as most violent crimes and sexual assaults/rapes are carried out by men.

I would agree that there are many men in the receiving side of abuse going unreported. Men are such main victims as women.

[Man_Of_Honor]

Reason why men in such abusive situations goes unnoticed because it gets overlooked by the public. There is no secret around it.

[Cally]

I agree that there is more support for abused women, but that's because there ARE more abused women.

Maybe - or maybe not.

"Abused men" is considered an oxymoron in this culture; even with "burning beds" and Lorrena Bobbit and other examples to the contrary. (of course those may be discounted as "self defense")

Men do not report abuse.  (no one would believe them or would be considered wusses or 'girly men')  So if it goes unreported, the statistics are going to be skewed.

Thats true, but I think you will agree that when it comes to physical and sexual abuse the main victims are women. Just the same as most violent crimes and sexual assaults/rapes are carried out by men.

I would agree that there are many men in the receiving side of abuse going unreported. Men are such main victims as women.

Many cases of women being abused are severe, but many "reports," as I have been told, are extremely minor, like pushes aside when she's blocking his path somewhere, and VAWA makes it possible for a woman to complain "abuse" over a dirty look.

In general, also, women tend more to complain, like visit the doctor over more minor issues . . . in general the overall "be a man and take it" culture has made many men suffer in silence.

But again, PROVERBS. What kind of help is there for a man who suffers the (probably mostly non-physical) pain that Proverbs says a wife can inflict, worse than exile to the desert? I'd rather take a few punches to the face.

[DaveW]

Thats true, but I think you will agree that when it comes to physical and sexual abuse the main victims are women. Just the same as most violent crimes and sexual assaults/rapes are carried out by men.

Not so sure I would agree.  Not having accurate statistics really messes up that whole discussion.

Yes - young men do most violent crimes that get prosecuted; (murders, assaults, rapes) but if a crime is not reported it cannot be prosecuted.

Back in the day (early/mid 1980s) DW and I went thru some difficult times.  She had a tendency to fly into a fit of rage at almost nothing.   One day she got enraged, broke the handle off a saucepan hitting me over the head with it; and then called the police on me.  I had not touched her or even yelled at her.  But I was the one who got the police report as being abusive.

And - no - I said nothing about her hitting me or the sauce pan.

That is why i say the statistics are not accurate.

[Cally]

Thats true, but I think you will agree that when it comes to physical and sexual abuse the main victims are women. Just the same as most violent crimes and sexual assaults/rapes are carried out by men.

Not so sure I would agree.  Not having accurate statistics really messes up that whole discussion.

Yes - young men do most violent crimes that get prosecuted; (murders, assaults, rapes) but if a crime is not reported it cannot be prosecuted.

Back in the day (early/mid 1980s) DW and I went thru some difficult times.  She had a tendency to fly into a fit of rage at almost nothing.   One day she got enraged, broke the handle off a saucepan hitting me over the head with it; and then called the police on me.  I had not touched her or even yelled at her.  But I was the one who got the police report as being abusive.

And - no - I said nothing about her hitting me or the sauce pan.

That is why i say the statistics are not accurate.

That's terrible, and anecdotally I've heard more female-on-male violence than vice-versa.

In general, a man being a victim DURING OR AFTER his marriage sounds like the loneliest place imaginable: no one helps you. The sacred gender gets help, men don't.

[ohcalidatex]

I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.

I never liked the idea of a prenup but my divorce cost me a ton of money and really set me back financially. Now I am closer to retirement and could not afford another hit like that. I would not go into another marriage expecting a divorce and I would surely trust my bride but I've seen people change. I've seen someone I would have trusted completely change. What if she divorced me for unbiblical reasons and now I suddenly was short of retirement funds?

Maybe a better analogy is insurance. You don't buy a house anticipating it will burn down but in the event it does you know you can't afford to rebuild it without insurance.

[chosenone]

I would never agree to marry a guy if he wanted a prenup. Just the fact that he asked would show me that he would consider divorce in the future and wasn't 100% committed to me or the marriage. In my case it was me who had the house and he came in with practically nothing, so if anyone should have had a prenup it would have been me, but I would never ever consider it. My solicitor even suggested it, and I laughed.
Protecting yourself or your children from a violent or sexually abusive partner is surely one thing, thinking of a divorce before you even start is quite another. My husband actually gave, yes gave, His ex the house, and he had practically nothing. That's the sort of guy he is, and that's the sort of guy I wanted to marry, someone who thinks of the wife's needs before himself, even though she was having an affair and divorcing him, not someone who was trying to protect his precious money at my expense even before we tied the knot. No I would run a mile if that were the case.

I never liked the idea of a prenup but my divorce cost me a ton of money and really set me back financially. Now I am closer to retirement and could not afford another hit like that. I would not go into another marriage expecting a divorce and I would surely trust my bride but I've seen people change. I've seen someone I would have trusted completely change. What if she divorced me for unbiblical reasons and now I suddenly was short of retirement funds?

Maybe a better analogy is insurance. You don't buy a house anticipating it will burn down but in the event it does you know you can't afford to rebuild it without insurance.

Well it may be a good job that you dont want to marry again.
My husband came out of his 23 year marriage with practically nothing. He GAVE his wife their house(which she hadn't paid a penny towards), because he didn't think it was right to fight over it or go to court, and because he trusts Gods completely to provide for him. God promises that HE will restore to us ALL that that the locusts have eaten, so do we believe that or not? Within a short time we met and married.
We have a very happy marriage and I have a house which is now OUR house. We have also had many promises from God of many more blessings and restorations to come.

Do the right thing, act with integrity, treat people with fairness no matter how they treat you, and God will always restore and reward you for doing this. We never need to rely on man made legal agreements or courts or judges when we have God. So what if we loose money, its only money after all, and God is the richest Dad in the world. 

[chosenone]

Reason why men in such abusive situations goes unnoticed because it gets overlooked by the public. There is no secret around it.

The main reason is that most men don't want to admit to it so never tell anyone. 

[Cally]

Reason why men in such abusive situations goes unnoticed because it gets overlooked by the public. There is no secret around it.

The main reason is that most men don't want to admit to it so never tell anyone. 

That is indeed part of it. Did you check out the video I posted on this thread? Just a suggestion.

[ohcalidatex]

Reason why men in such abusive situations goes unnoticed because it gets overlooked by the public. There is no secret around it.

The main reason is that most men don't want to admit to it so never tell anyone.

Your faith is right on. I've never had a prenup and I'm not sure I would were I ever to remarry. However I would not judge those who decide to.

Yes the world is a better place with me single. 

[DaveW]

All this discussion reminds me of is Jerry Reed's hit country song "She got the gold mine, I got the shaft."

She got the gold mine, I got the shaft
They split it right down the middle
And then they give her the better half
Well, it all sounds sort of funny
But it hurts too much to laugh
She got the gold mine, I got the shaft

Now, listen, you ain't heard nothin' yet
Why, they gave her the color television set
Then they give her the house, the kids and both of the cars
See, then they start talking about child support
Alimony, and the cost of the court
Didn't take me long to figure out how far in the toilet I was

[Carey]

 

I am not understanding the analogy between support for abused women and prenups, nor wills and prenups.  The insurance analogy offered by ohcalidatex, however, is a reasonable one I suppose.  Given God does allow for divorce in certain circumstances, if one feels the need for such an agreement, he/she may have a point, and that is his/her business. 

Personally I am not keen on such an agreement, especially where it is a unilateral demand, an ultimatum.  It seems to enter such a union as marriage, making vows before God 'til death do you part, one should be "all in." 

I will admit that this is easy for me to assert as my wife and I had little when we were married, but what we did have was no longer hers or mine, it was ours.  For our sister chosenone, the risk was much greater, but she appears to have reaped so much more through trusting God and her husband.

Further:

Luke 6:(KJV)
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

If this in reference to a stranger or enemy, should it not be more so to one that we once loved and vowed to cherish 'til death.

Finally, even should the worst happen: my wife leaves me penniless with nothing but the clothes on my back, I would still be better off than the majority of my brethren in Christ in this world, and blessed.

[Cally]

I am not understanding the analogy between support for abused women and prenups

The point was that somehow it's okay for wives to effectively have a backup protection from their husbands but not vice-versa.

The risk for men being divorced and then leeched sometimes all the way to prison is really high.

[Cally]

All this discussion reminds me of is Jerry Reed's hit country song "She got the gold mine, I got the shaft."

She got the gold mine, I got the shaft
They split it right down the middle
And then they give her the better half
Well, it all sounds sort of funny
But it hurts too much to laugh
She got the gold mine, I got the shaft

Now, listen, you ain't heard nothin' yet
Why, they gave her the color television set
Then they give her the house, the kids and both of the cars
See, then they start talking about child support
Alimony, and the cost of the court
Didn't take me long to figure out how far in the toilet I was

chosenone was kind of going on that it's only money, but men in the Old Testament were scolded by God for abandoning their wives and told they were clothing themselves in "violence" in so doing. How is it not violence, in the same light, for a wife to exploit the biased legal system and strip her husband of his livelihood?

[Carey]

I am not understanding the analogy between support for abused women and prenups

The point was that somehow it's okay for wives to effectively have a backup protection from their husbands but not vice-versa.

The risk for men being divorced and then leeched sometimes all the way to prison is really high.

I can see where your coming from.  But..

The analogy works better in comparing the unfairness of the "backup protection" being more available for the wife than the husband, to the unfairness of the advantage a wife has in divorce legislation over her husband.

Here the prenup is not analogous, rather a remedy for that unfairness.

Quite frankly, I find the analogy of a woman abused to a man losing some of his wealth a bit insensitive;  or at worse, although I don't think deliberate on your part, provocative.

Chosenone is right it is just money, earthly riches.  We can turn the other cheek knowing God is just, and we can rely on Him to provide for us.

[Cally]

I am not understanding the analogy between support for abused women and prenups

The point was that somehow it's okay for wives to effectively have a backup protection from their husbands but not vice-versa.

The risk for men being divorced and then leeched sometimes all the way to prison is really high.

I can see where your coming from.  But..

The analogy works better in comparing the unfairness of the "backup protection" being more available for the wife than the husband, to the unfairness of the advantage a wife has in divorce legislation over her husband.

Here the prenup is not analogous, rather a remedy for that unfairness.

Quite frankly, I find the analogy of a woman abused to a man losing some of his wealth a bit insensitive;  or at worse, although I don't think deliberate on your part, provocative.

Chosenone is right it is just money, earthly riches.  We can turn the other cheek knowing God is just, and we can rely on Him to provide for us.

Carey, and then there's the insensitivity to the issue of men who are physically abused having no options and nowhere to go which has also been brought up. People who confront the issues of domestic violence against men have gotten death threats (see the video on this thread as an example).

Indeed, to some, the very discussion of issues men face today is offensive.

[Carey]

I am not understanding the analogy between support for abused women and prenups

The point was that somehow it's okay for wives to effectively have a backup protection from their husbands but not vice-versa.

The risk for men being divorced and then leeched sometimes all the way to prison is really high.

I can see where your coming from.  But..

The analogy works better in comparing the unfairness of the "backup protection" being more available for the wife than the husband, to the unfairness of the advantage a wife has in divorce legislation over her husband.

Here the prenup is not analogous, rather a remedy for that unfairness.

Quite frankly, I find the analogy of a woman abused to a man losing some of his wealth a bit insensitive;  or at worse, although I don't think deliberate on your part, provocative.

Chosenone is right it is just money, earthly riches.  We can turn the other cheek knowing God is just, and we can rely on Him to provide for us.

Carey, and then there's the insensitivity to the issue of men who are physically abused having no options and nowhere to go which has also been brought up. People who confront the issues of domestic violence against men have gotten death threats (see the video on this thread as an example).

Indeed, to some, the very discussion of issues men face today is offensive.

Cally, I was addressing the thread topic, not this particular tangent.  I agree that men should have the same support available them as women, that a man's recounting of events of violence should have the same weight as a women's.  Never the less, that does not change my opinion posted, I will always put physical abuse and suffering above material things.

I think society is beginning to recognize the problem of domestic violence against men, unfortunately change in addressing such appropriately, will likely be a slow process, as it was for women.  I do believe that I will see this change come about in my lifetime, and I am certain you will; you have a few more years available to you.

[Cally]

Cally, I was addressing the thread topic, not this particular tangent.  I agree that men should have the same support available them as women, that a man's recounting of events of violence should have the same weight as a women's.  Never the less, that does not change my opinion posted, I will always put physical abuse and suffering above material things.

Except I don't see the dichotomy, Carey. Again, some men have been hit SO hard in family court that they've ended up in jail because their alimony and child support bills were straight-up impossible to pay.

What's worse to you? I'd rather take a good punch in the face or two than end up in jail for life or out in the cold going hungry because of a marriage profiteer. Or in general--and this is JUST ME, maybe--I'd rather be roughed up a time or two than be someone's long-term slave over the course of many years. Of course I realize a lot of physical abuse is much worse than that, but all I'm saying is, once again, I don't particularly see the dichotomy. I'll leave that alone at "agree to disagree," but just saying, that's how I look at it; indeed, in addition, a lot of the things Proverbs says about the ways an ungodly wife can absolutely devastate a man from which I don't see much of anything in the world protecting a man.

I think society is beginning to recognize the problem of domestic violence against men, unfortunately change in addressing such appropriately, will likely be a slow process, as it was for women.  I do believe that I will see this change come about in my lifetime, and I am certain you will; you have a few more years available to you.

Indeed a lot of things are changing--because they must. But there are many, many people (especially feminists, of course) who so absolutely despise any attention being paid to those issues that things are going to get explosive on the way.

[chosenone]

The issues you speak of are two completely different things. Any abuse is terrible, and I spent some time last week trying to persuade a man to leave his physically abusive wife, but prenups are another area entirely.
We have had a case in the UK this week, where a man with not to much money, married the daughter of a very wealthy man, and despite him signing a prenup, the judge awarded him to be paid 1 1/2 million pounds as part of the divorce settlement, so it works both ways. Her father is furious, and when you look at his previous girlfriends/partners, they were all quite wealthy, so he seems to like being supported by rich women. In the UK common sense prevails over prenups anyway, and they can be overruled.

I cant see anywhere in the Bible that says we should take out some sort of financial agreement before marriage, to 'protect out assets', on the contrary, the 'two becoming one' says to me that everything becomes 'ours' after marriage, no matter how much each bought in. In my marriage, I had the house and my husband earns most the income. Everything we have is 'ours'. I suppose if anyone cant accept that then maybe marriage isn't for them.

[Cally]

The issues you speak of are two completely different things. Any abuse is terrible, and I spent some time last week trying to persuade a man to leave his physically abusive wife, but prenups are another area entirely.
We have had a case in the UK this week, where a man with not to much money, married the daughter of a very wealthy man, and despite him signing a prenup, the judge awarded him to be paid 1 1/2 million pounds as part of the divorce settlement, so it works both ways. Her father is furious, and when you look at his previous girlfriends/partners, they were all quite wealthy, so he seems to like being supported by rich women. In the UK common sense prevails over prenups anyway, and they can be overruled.

Yes, occasionally it happens to women too, and a man likewise behaves as a prostitute.

I cant see anywhere in the Bible that says we should take out some sort of financial agreement before marriage, to 'protect out assets', on the contrary, the 'two becoming one' says to me that everything becomes 'ours' after marriage, no matter how much each bought in. In my marriage, I had the house and my husband earns most the income. Everything we have is 'ours'. I suppose if anyone cant accept that then maybe marriage isn't for them.

The Bible offers almost nothing as grounds for divorce regardless. But one thing you're failing to understand is that a "financial agreement" already does exist by the laws written by the land, so a prenup is nothing more than a modification of that agreement.

I don't see a biblical basis for alimony to begin with. A prenup is basically saying, "sorry, the financial agreement the government already set up--called 'alimony' in which a divorce spouse still gets from the other in the event of divorce--is not acceptable, so here's a counter-proposal." That's it. It's just a modification of what is obviously an unbiblical financial agreement that exists in the first place.

In a marriage, it is indeed "ours." But if one decides to take off, it is no longer, and the spouse initiating the divorce has no business leeching off the other as if they were.

[DaveW]

I don't see a biblical basis for alimony to begin with.

Actually it is in there but a bit difficult to see.  Read any book on Orthodox Jewish divorce and it should be explained.   Deut 24.1 says if a man divorces his wife he must give her a "get" or certificate in writing of divorce.  Thru the rest of the OT there are references to the get containing provision for the divorced wife. By the first century the gets became quite detailed.

Our Lord did not have any quarrel with provisions in the get.