Another thought I had about prenups

[chosenone]

So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.

I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him.

Sorry but I am really old fashioned on this point.  Any man who cannot take that from his wife and still come up smiling is no man in my book.

I totally disagree. No one, man or woman, should ever have to accept or put up with being hit and beaten by their spouse. They need to separate and request that their abusive spouse gets professional help.
Anyone who puts up with this is enabling the appalling behaviour.

[chosenone]

So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.

I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong.  The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse. 

Women can cause such damage with objects.

Women can manipulate and be the mastermind of violence. Shares equal responsibility.

So if a woman is beaten up, she is deserved it?

Sometimes women deliberately bait their husbands (heard it from people who work with wives).

A man should be taught just to run for his life rather than retaliate physically.

I am sure that happens occasionally, but just as often the man is a violent wife beater who does it regardless.

[DaveW]

I have no idea why anyone, man or woman, would stay with a person who hits them, because by doing so, they are enabling their behaviour.

Because many (myself included) see no-where in scripture that physical abuse is grounds for divorce and there is no biblical recognition of "separation."

[Cally]

This legacy passed from man to man (oftentimes) needs to stop. I actually think, Dave, that that puts women out of a job because nurturing to emotional needs is a gift God enabled in women.

That is one way of looking at it. For me it was passed on from my dad. For others they got it in the military.  Many paleo-sociologists (who are big on evolution) believe it was a required trait for men in caveman society to be unfeeling in order to keep on providing for family and village.

I am seriously so sorry for you Dave.

For what exactly?

Dave I need no introduction because I got the "be a man" and get results results results like a man's soul depends on his material output (in ways that a woman doesn't) too. I expect that it was not nearly as much as what you experienced--so I think I can empathize . . . and REALLY empathize. Us guys really need Jesus to save us from that.

[Man_Of_Honor]

So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.

I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong.  The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse. 

Women can cause such damage with objects.

Women can manipulate and be the mastermind of violence. Shares equal responsibility.

So if a woman is beaten up, she is deserved it?

No one deserves to be beaten.

Just pointing out scenarios I mentioned above has occured.

[DaveW]

Um - what does spousal abuse have to do with prenup agreements?

I thought that was the topic of this thread ....

[MeMyself]

Um - what does spousal abuse have to do with prenup agreements?

I thought that was the topic of this thread ....

Lol...every thread I am posting on at the moment has taken a little wander off the OP. I think its just the nature of conversations.

[Man_Of_Honor]

All sorts of abuses to solely be focusing on the physical aspect.

[Cally]

So much I read and hear about a man should not be hitting women. While being silent on the reverse.

I have never heard anyone say that its ok for a woman to hit a man. As I said, I spent ages the other day trying to persuade a man that he should leave him wife who was regularly hitting him. Abuse of any sort is wrong.  The fact is that it is more rare because men are naturally more physical and violent, hence nearly all violent crimes are committed by men. Also if a man beats a woman, the fact that he is physically stronger can mean the injuries can be far worse. 

Did you see the video I posted?

I have actually heard people who deal with DV tell me that the number of wives who hit their husbands is (at least) almost the same as vice-versa. If you find evidence for that, you get death threats from feminists.

As you admitted, many men won't report violence against them.

According to these official statistics, the percentage of women to men who are physically abused is 85% women to 15% men, and we also need to remember that many women never report abuse either. Some will report it after years and years of on going abuse.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats/ 

I have no idea why anyone, man or woman, would stay with a person who hits them, because by doing so, they are enabling their behaviour.

Did. You. Watch. The. Video? If someone produces evidence that men get anywhere near the same amount of violence, he gets death threats.

"Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States."

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html

And here's something to think about that requires REALLY putting on your thinking cap. Here is (to my knowledge) an undisputed statistic: the highest-rate of domestic violence is found between lesbian couples. LESBIAN couples! Remember that men do not report DV as much because of "be a man" social stigmas, and the fact that there's almost NO point in even reporting it since almost no resources exist for male victims.

http://www.pandys.org/articles/lesbiandomesticviolence.html

"Perhaps surprisingly, statistics have shown that lesbian people experience domestic violence at a very similar rate to that of heterosexual women (Waldner-Haygrud, 1997; AVP, 1992). It has been estimated that between 17-45% of lesbians have been the victim of at least one act of violence perpetrated by a female partner (Burke et al, 1999; Lie et al, 1991), and that 30% of lesbians have reported sexual assault / rape by another woman (Renzetti, 1992). Considering the lack of discussion that takes place regarding lesbian domestic violence and sexual assault, I find these figures staggering."


And here's something out of MY personal experience: I've known several pip-squeak women who will probably never attack anyone in their lives, but shared their desires with me that they'd like to physically assault and/or kill someone. Will they attack a huge guy? Probably not, although some women take advantage of the "never hit a girl" thing. This day in age, I'm concerned things will get worse and worse.

The point being, everything indicates to me that men are almost certainly soaking up a lot more abuse than given credit for--and in general, I find it well-established that the concern for men as I've mentioned just isn't such a to-do even to some folks who are aware of it. The very idea of protecting a man from a woman just doesn't register in a lot of people's minds.

[chosenone]

Um - what does spousal abuse have to do with prenup agreements?

I thought that was the topic of this thread ....

It was because of Callys first post, which was this:-
..................


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.

.....................................
.

[Cally]

Um - what does spousal abuse have to do with prenup agreements?

I thought that was the topic of this thread ....

It was because of Callys first post, which was this:-
..................


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.

.....................................
.

And the reason for exploring the issue of DV as a men's issue is just pointing out a general tendency for people not being interested (for the most part) in helping men when they are victims of women (certainly nowhere NEAR on par with the romantic notions of the reverse), be it in divorce settlements, DV . . . and hence understanding of those cases all-around is a problem too.

[chosenone]

Um - what does spousal abuse have to do with prenup agreements?

I thought that was the topic of this thread ....

It was because of Callys first post, which was this:-
..................


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.

.....................................
.

And the reason for exploring the issue of DV as a men's issue is just pointing out a general tendency for people not being interested (for the most part) in helping men when they are victims of women (certainly nowhere NEAR on par with the romantic notions of the reverse), be it in divorce settlements, DV . . . and hence understanding of those cases all-around is a problem too.

I dont agree that people dont want to help men. There are loads of men's groups, support groups and help for men with different types of issues and problems. How many people do you know REALLY well who have been divorced? 3 ort 4? 2 or 3? I know dozens and dozens, many in my family, my ex's family and my husbands family. I have never seen one where the husband was treated differently from the woman.
My own solicitor for example, was very fair, and despite what my ex had done to me and the children(which the solicitor admitted was appalling) he said that the courts don't take that into account but only want what is needed for the children, taking into account that each spouse needs to have enough to live on and somewhere to live. I have never known a single case here where one spouse was treated badly by the courts.   

Besides that, we as believers need to trust GOD to provide for us, protect us, look after us, and be our advocate, rather than think that the world owes us a living and go all out to get what WE can to the detriment of our soon to be spouse. So what if they get a bit more than us, so what if we feel aggrieved, God is the ultimate judge and provider and if we act with decency, honestly, fairness and integrity, God will always restore what we have lost anyway and bless us. 
Look at our case. Despite what my ex did to us, I always treated him fairly and decently, not even persuing things in the divorce that my solicitor said I was entitled to, and yet God has been restoring to me so much. My husband gave his wife(who had had an affair and was divorcing him) all they had, with the house and contents, rather than fight through the secular courts, and very quickly he met me, we married and I had a home for us to live in, and we have a brilliant marriage.

A solicitor we know even admitted that my husbands wife had 'taken him to the cleaners'(a British phrase),but do you know what, my husband didn't care, he had done what he felt was right in Gods eyes and felt completely at peace. Now THAT'S a Godly man. Guess what, 9 years later she is alone while he has a very happy marriage, 3 step kids who he loves and who love him, a beautiful new step grandson, and many promises from God of what a blessed future we have in store.  God always rewards us if we act well.

If we try and get our own 'human rights'(how I hate that word)and go all out to 'fleece' the other partner, guess what, we may well end up with very little, because God will say that we have had our own rewards, and may not restore or give us anything. We may have got 'one up' on our ex, but in Gods eyes we have acted badly and in an ungodly way.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Coming in late, but the first thing that sticks out to me is that you view a prenup very differently than I do.

You view them as insurance in case the relationship fails.
I view them as agreeing on the terms of the relationship beforehand.

How you approach it makes a big difference, I would think.

Jarrod

[chosenone]

Coming in late, but the first thing that sticks out to me is that you view a prenup very differently than I do.

You view them as insurance in case the relationship fails.
I view them as agreeing on the terms of the relationship beforehand.

How you approach it makes a big difference, I would think.

Jarrod

The only time a prenup would be needed is if the marriage ends. If we believe that we become one when we marry, then to me that means that everything that either has or owns before the marriage is now 'ours' after the marriage. If we are married and yet still consider things as 'mine' or 'yours', then what does that say? To me it says that you haven't become one in the true sense of the word. 

I can understand it when people in the world want pre-nups, because in the world money and possessions are everything, and in the world of the very rich, marriages very often fail. Also they don't have God to provide for them, nor to restore to them anything that they may loose. Their money and assets are their only security, unlike us.

I just cant understand what place such an agreement has in a Christian marriage.
In the UK they aren't even legally binding, and often if there has been such an agreement, the judge will over rule it because it is unfair.

[Cally]

Coming in late, but the first thing that sticks out to me is that you view a prenup very differently than I do.

You view them as insurance in case the relationship fails.
I view them as agreeing on the terms of the relationship beforehand.

How you approach it makes a big difference, I would think.

Jarrod

Secular law basically determines a lot of issues regarding the marriage contract and a prenup is just a modification on it.

[Cally]

I can understand it when people in the world want pre-nups, because in the world money and possessions are everything, and in the world of the very rich, marriages very often fail. Also they don't have God to provide for them, nor to restore to them anything that they may loose. Their money and assets are their only security, unlike us.

This is such a lame guilt trip to mask a total lack of compassion for men. I'm sickened by the thought of men being leeched by women who divorce them, unable to do the good they could be doing in the world, unable to go free as they are made to be, because their wives just decided to divorce him. They have value unto themselves and don't belong in that bondage. If a woman decides to divorce her husband (or vice-versa, of course) then they are no longer "one flesh" and she cannot consider herself entitled to any of him in any way, and there is nothing wrong with making that clear in the marriage contract (via a prenup) before marriage.

It is BIBLICAL that an attack on someone's livelihood is a form of violence. (Malachi 2:16) And the reasons are really obvious, as it can lead to physical harm.

[MeMyself]

I can understand it when people in the world want pre-nups, because in the world money and possessions are everything, and in the world of the very rich, marriages very often fail. Also they don't have God to provide for them, nor to restore to them anything that they may loose. Their money and assets are their only security, unlike us.

This is such a lame guilt trip to mask a total lack of compassion for men. I'm sickened by the thought of men being leeched by women who divorce them, unable to do the good they could be doing in the world, unable to go free as they are made to be, because their wives just decided to divorce him. They have value unto themselves and don't belong in that bondage. If a woman decides to divorce her husband (or vice-versa, of course) then they are no longer "one flesh" and she cannot consider herself entitled to any of him in any way, and there is nothing wrong with making that clear in the marriage contract (via a prenup) before marriage.

It is BIBLICAL that an attack on someone's livelihood is a form of violence. (Malachi 2:16) And the reasons are really obvious, as it can lead to physical harm.

If the woman has her own career, I agree that she should not be entitled to her dh's $.  They can both put up equal amounts to raise the kids, but spousal support for a woman with the means to provide for herself? no.

OTOH, my dh and I agreed that I was NOT going to have a highfalutin career; that I was going to make a home and raise our family.  If, God forbid, something went crazy haywire with us and we split...I have no way to provide for myself, let alone the children.

I realize not many women these days are homemakers (full time child raisers), but for those of us out there...this post, Cally sent a shiver down my spine. sorry.

[Cally]

OTOH, my dh and I agreed that I was NOT going to have a highfalutin career; that I was going to make a home and raise our family.  If, God forbid, something went crazy haywire with us and we split...I have no way to provide for myself, let alone the children.

Then don't divorce the guy. Isn't that obvious?

And I personally don't advocate the matter being handled any differently in the reverse scenario if a man decides to divorce his wife. The spouse who decides to take off decides that there is no longer "one flesh," so how is that spouse entitled to anything from the other as if they were?

[MeMyself]

OTOH, my dh and I agreed that I was NOT going to have a highfalutin career; that I was going to make a home and raise our family.  If, God forbid, something went crazy haywire with us and we split...I have no way to provide for myself, let alone the children.

Then don't divorce the guy. Isn't that obvious?

Wow.  Compassion exudes, Cally! LOL!  Are you saying no matter WHAT he does, I should not divorce him?  (I am NOT planning to, not even close and I thought I made that clear in my post by saying " God forbid, something went crazy haywire with us"...)

And I personally don't advocate the matter being handled any differently in the reverse scenario if a man decides to divorce his wife. The spouse who decides to take off decides that there is no longer "one flesh," so how is that spouse entitled to anything from the other as if they were?

Life throws so many curve balls, Cally.  There are circumstances out there none of us *ever* think we will have to face...

If I left (again, God forbid, not looking to, not wishing to, not planning to EVER) it would have to be because of some very serious harmful offenses and there was no sign of remorse.

I would need his financial assistance...at least until I could get a degree in something that could sustain a modest (and I am willing to live VERY modestly) life.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Coming in late, but the first thing that sticks out to me is that you view a prenup very differently than I do.

You view them as insurance in case the relationship fails.
I view them as agreeing on the terms of the relationship beforehand.

How you approach it makes a big difference, I would think.

Jarrod

The only time a prenup would be needed is if the marriage ends.

I don't agree.  A prenuptial agreement can set forth an expectation of what is/isn't appropriate to the relationship, which can help to keep a marriage from ending.  It also could keep a marriage from happening, if the two can't agree on something.  That might be a good thing.

If nothing else, it forces some compromises on issues BEFORE the situation actually happens, which can make handling issues that arise less confusing.

If we believe that we become one when we marry, then to me that means that everything that either has or owns before the marriage is now 'ours' after the marriage. If we are married and yet still consider things as 'mine' or 'yours', then what does that say? To me it says that you haven't become one in the true sense of the word.

The Bible only says "one flesh," not "one mind" or "one fiduciary."  To be certain, a co-mingling of assets is something that should be discussed and agreed on beforehand.  But I don't think that a complete merger is an absolute necessity.

My fiancee and I have agreed on a system that will allow each of us to have things that are "mine" in addition to a pool of resources and things which are "ours."  There are some definite benefits, and this is what both of us want.

I can understand it when people in the world want pre-nups, because in the world money and possessions are everything, and in the world of the very rich, marriages very often fail. Also they don't have God to provide for them, nor to restore to them anything that they may loose. Their money and assets are their only security, unlike us.

It's not a security issue so much as a freedom issue.  Having a separate account means not having to agree on every major purchase.  Each person can have things they are "saving for" without each other's goals competing directly with each other.

I just cant understand what place such an agreement has in a Christian marriage.  In the UK they aren't even legally binding, and often if there has been such an agreement, the judge will over rule it because it is unfair.

Wow.  I didn't realize the British legal system had eroded so much.  You guys are in danger of losing the things that make you British.  Heading towards being just one more good EU citizen, I guess.

Jarrod

[Texas Conservative]

It is always necessary to have the potential wife sign the standard "Waiver of Property and Profit," if she wishes to marry you.  This does two things, 1.  Prohibits her from owning any property 2.  She may make no claims against the husband's estate in the event of the dissolution of marriage.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Secular law basically determines a lot of issues regarding the marriage contract...

Exactly.  Maybe it's just me, but my confidence in the government to set and regulate the terms of my marriage is very, very low.

...and a prenup is just a modification on it.

Or if you make it specific, it can override a lot of things, effectively allowing the two people to agree to their own terms for the marriage.  It's not just a "what we do in case we break up."  Unless you choose to do it that way, in which case, you missed the point of doing it already.

It should be a time where the couple can come together and discuss their future and set expectations and establish a process and a system to govern their household.  Maybe it sounds strange, but it can be a time where you learn a lot about your potential mates wants and desires and plan a way to better keep that person satisfied.

Jarrod

[MeMyself]

It is always necessary to have the potential wife sign the standard "Waiver of Property and Profit," if she wishes to marry you.  This does two things, 1.  Prohibits her from owning any property 2.  She may make no claims against the husband's estate in the event of the dissolution of marriage.

[k-pappy]

It is always necessary to have the potential wife sign the standard "Waiver of Property and Profit," if she wishes to marry you.  This does two things, 1.  Prohibits her from owning any property 2.  She may make no claims against the husband's estate in the event of the dissolution of marriage.

I am fairly certain that is tongue in cheek.

[MeMyself]

It is always necessary to have the potential wife sign the standard "Waiver of Property and Profit," if she wishes to marry you.  This does two things, 1.  Prohibits her from owning any property 2.  She may make no claims against the husband's estate in the event of the dissolution of marriage.

I am fairly certain that is tongue in cheek.

I hope so...lol...I was leaning that way, but wanted to check... ;)

[chosenone]

It is always necessary to have the potential wife sign the standard "Waiver of Property and Profit," if she wishes to marry you.  This does two things, 1.  Prohibits her from owning any property 2.  She may make no claims against the husband's estate in the event of the dissolution of marriage.

Secular law basically determines a lot of issues regarding the marriage contract...

Exactly.  Maybe it's just me, but my confidence in the government to set and regulate the terms of my marriage is very, very low.

...and a prenup is just a modification on it.

Or if you make it specific, it can override a lot of things, effectively allowing the two people to agree to their own terms for the marriage.  It's not just a "what we do in case we break up."  Unless you choose to do it that way, in which case, you missed the point of doing it already.

It should be a time where the couple can come together and discuss their future and set expectations and establish a process and a system to govern their household.  Maybe it sounds strange, but it can be a time where you learn a lot about your potential mates wants and desires and plan a way to better keep that person satisfied.

Jarrod

Prenups are almost always about what happens financially in the event of a divorce.

[chosenone]

Secular law basically determines a lot of issues regarding the marriage contract...

Exactly.  Maybe it's just me, but my confidence in the government to set and regulate the terms of my marriage is very, very low.

...and a prenup is just a modification on it.

Or if you make it specific, it can override a lot of things, effectively allowing the two people to agree to their own terms for the marriage.  It's not just a "what we do in case we break up."  Unless you choose to do it that way, in which case, you missed the point of doing it already.

It should be a time where the couple can come together and discuss their future and set expectations and establish a process and a system to govern their household.  Maybe it sounds strange, but it can be a time where you learn a lot about your potential mates wants and desires and plan a way to better keep that person satisfied.

Jarrod

How exactly does the govt regulate the terms of your marriage even before you are married? The govt has never regulated the terms of my marriage. 

[chosenone]

Coming in late, but the first thing that sticks out to me is that you view a prenup very differently than I do.

You view them as insurance in case the relationship fails.
I view them as agreeing on the terms of the relationship beforehand.

How you approach it makes a big difference, I would think.

Jarrod

The only time a prenup would be needed is if the marriage ends.

I don't agree.  A prenuptial agreement can set forth an expectation of what is/isn't appropriate to the relationship, which can help to keep a marriage from ending.  It also could keep a marriage from happening, if the two can't agree on something.  That might be a good thing.

If nothing else, it forces some compromises on issues BEFORE the situation actually happens, which can make handling issues that arise less confusing.

If we believe that we become one when we marry, then to me that means that everything that either has or owns before the marriage is now 'ours' after the marriage. If we are married and yet still consider things as 'mine' or 'yours', then what does that say? To me it says that you haven't become one in the true sense of the word.

The Bible only says "one flesh," not "one mind" or "one fiduciary."  To be certain, a co-mingling of assets is something that should be discussed and agreed on beforehand.  But I don't think that a complete merger is an absolute necessity.

My fiancee and I have agreed on a system that will allow each of us to have things that are "mine" in addition to a pool of resources and things which are "ours."  There are some definite benefits, and this is what both of us want.

I can understand it when people in the world want pre-nups, because in the world money and possessions are everything, and in the world of the very rich, marriages very often fail. Also they don't have God to provide for them, nor to restore to them anything that they may loose. Their money and assets are their only security, unlike us.

It's not a security issue so much as a freedom issue.  Having a separate account means not having to agree on every major purchase.  Each person can have things they are "saving for" without each other's goals competing directly with each other.

I just cant understand what place such an agreement has in a Christian marriage.  In the UK they aren't even legally binding, and often if there has been such an agreement, the judge will over rule it because it is unfair.

Wow.  I didn't realize the British legal system had eroded so much.  You guys are in danger of losing the things that make you British.  Heading towards being just one more good EU citizen, I guess.

Jarrod

Prenups have never been legally binding here WS, so nothing has been eroded. The judge will look at what is fair for each spouse and the children if the case comes to court,(and most divorces never come to court.) Remember pre-nups they are a VERY recent modern invention. I think its 100% right that they are not legally binding, because that not what marriage should be about, and many of them are very unfair to one spouse, especially after a long marriage. 

[Cally]

I think its 100% right that they are not legally binding, because that not what marriage should be about, and many of them are very unfair to one spouse, especially after a long marriage. 

Hold on, I thought it was "just stuff" in any case, and we should trust God to restore things when we lose them.

Or maybe what you mean is that it's "just stuff" if it's the man who loses out? If it's the woman who stands to suffer an injustice, then the issue of unfairness is suddenly important?

Please clarify, if you would.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Prenups are almost always about what happens financially in the event of a divorce.

I'm not sure that's true... the most common stipulation is one to prevent all property from becoming common property, and allow for each person to have their own sole and separate property.  This is relevant in case of a divorce, of course, but it is quite a bit more than that.

Even if we allowed that it was true, that doesn't mean that is the way it should be.  <- This is actually one of the major points I was trying to make in that previous post.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Prenups have never been legally binding here WS, so nothing has been eroded. The judge will look at what is fair for each spouse and the children if the case comes to court,(and most divorces never come to court.

To me this sounds like a huge erosion of the legal system.  Two willing people enter into a mutual contract fully aware of what they are agreeing to.  Later, the judge strikes down that agreement.  Not because there is something in it that is against the law.  Because he wants it to be "fair." 

"Fair" doesn't seem like a legal concept to me.  More of a nebulous opinion type thing.  Erosion.

Remember pre-nups they are a VERY recent modern invention. I think its 100% right that they are not legally binding, because that not what marriage should be about, and many of them are very unfair to one spouse, especially after a long marriage.

I disagree again.  The word "pre-nup" may be new, but the practice is as old as marriage itself. 

These used to be called betrothals, and they were/are a period of time coming after the point where the groom-to-be announces his intention to marry the bride-to-be where the terms of the marriage were haggled over and agreed on.  The groom could not take the bride as wife, and there was no wedding, until he received permission.

Of course, a major difference is that it used to be the father-of-the-bride who negotiated on his daughter's behalf (or, nefariously, sometimes on his own behalf other than hers).  Typically the negotiations included discussion of the dowry, stipulations that the groom must own certain property, provide certain things for the bride, conditions under which the groom might divorce his wife, and conditions under which the wife might annul the marriage and return to her parents home.

The whole betrothal process is kind of a major theme in the Bible, with Christ playing the part of the groom, and the church the part of the bride, and the bride waiting for the groom's return, after he finishes making the required preparations.

Jarrod

[chosenone]

Prenups have never been legally binding here WS, so nothing has been eroded. The judge will look at what is fair for each spouse and the children if the case comes to court,(and most divorces never come to court.

To me this sounds like a huge erosion of the legal system.  Two willing people enter into a mutual contract fully aware of what they are agreeing to.  Later, the judge strikes down that agreement.  Not because there is something in it that is against the law.  Because he wants it to be "fair." 

"Fair" doesn't seem like a legal concept to me.  More of a nebulous opinion type thing.  Erosion.

Remember pre-nups they are a VERY recent modern invention. I think its 100% right that they are not legally binding, because that not what marriage should be about, and many of them are very unfair to one spouse, especially after a long marriage.

I disagree again.  The word "pre-nup" may be new, but the practice is as old as marriage itself. 

These used to be called betrothals, and they were/are a period of time coming after the point where the groom-to-be announces his intention to marry the bride-to-be where the terms of the marriage were haggled over and agreed on.  The groom could not take the bride as wife, and there was no wedding, until he received permission.

Of course, a major difference is that it used to be the father-of-the-bride who negotiated on his daughter's behalf (or, nefariously, sometimes on his own behalf other than hers).  Typically the negotiations included discussion of the dowry, stipulations that the groom must own certain property, provide certain things for the bride, conditions under which the groom might divorce his wife, and conditions under which the wife might annul the marriage and return to her parents home.

The whole betrothal process is kind of a major theme in the Bible, with Christ playing the part of the groom, and the church the part of the bride, and the bride waiting for the groom's return, after he finishes making the required preparations.

Jarrod

Prenups, as in deciding who gets what financially if the marriage ends have never been legal here. The legal system here is thankfully among the best in the world, and I am glad that the courts have the right to overrule often very unfair agreements made sometimes 20 or 30 years before, when things in the marriage have changed dramatically and children have been born. A divorce will only go to court of one or both are fighting the settlement, and most don't get to court because agreement is reached before that.
My solicitor, when he found out I was getting married again, said half jokingly, 'we do a good rate on prenups.' I just laughed and said, no thanks not for me.

[Texas Conservative]

It is always necessary to have the potential wife sign the standard "Waiver of Property and Profit," if she wishes to marry you.  This does two things, 1.  Prohibits her from owning any property 2.  She may make no claims against the husband's estate in the event of the dissolution of marriage.

The "Wavier of Property and Profit" is a fairly standard form.  You can google it.  Also, we are where we are in this society because we started letting women leave the house without a male escort, wear clothes, speak to males they are not related to, etc.   Women should stay at home, teach their children the "Rules of Acquisition" and pre-chew their childrens food for them.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Prenups, as in deciding who gets what financially if the marriage ends have never been legal here.

It's like I didn't say anything at all... you just gloss over it entirely in your opening sentence.

whoosh!

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The "Wavier of Property and Profit" is a fairly standard form.  You can google it.  Also, we are where we are in this society because we started letting women leave the house without a male escort, wear clothes, speak to males they are not related to, etc.   Women should stay at home, teach their children the "Rules of Acquisition" and pre-chew their childrens food for them.

You don't have the lobes...