One of men's biggest fears due to the rise in feminism has been asking a woman he wants to marry to sign a prenuptial agreement to protect his own assets and to provide her some guarantees if they do end up separating. The excuse most commonly give is "Why get married if you are planning the divorce before you even do?". A pre-nup is like taking your wife to a ****tail party and introducing her as "My future ex-wife Svetlana."
This is a widely debated topic and a very sensitive one, so lets dig into it here!
If preserving romance is the main purpose of all marriages, well then marriage would not exist.
Marriage is the most demanding contract any person ever signs and the marriage contract is infact a government created prenup. Having a lawyer create your marriage contract/prenup and having her agree to the terms can benefit both parties now and into the future and if god-forbid you seperate through divorce.
Why should Signing that marriage "contract certificate" beOK, but signing a prenup agreement that protects previous assets is not?
Two people can have more romance in their marriage than anyone else in the world, but it is still a marriage contract certificate that they signed...with all the legal and financial implications it has. Validating the contractual aspects of marriage does not negate, antagonize or stand in the way of romance. Quite the contrary, when the married couple have understanding and agreement about money and other legal obligations of marriage, the romance increases.
A well prepared prenup, will protect the man's previous assets and income, something Mrs. new wife will have done nothing to create or help create.
And it should protect her as well by establishing a specific amount based on the number of marriage years, not lifestyle.
Again, kids are a complete different beast altogether.
Leave them out of any prenup you may consider getting.
Excuse often given: A man who is not willing to risk everything he has to get married should remain single.
Answer: Where is the logic to sentencing a man to eternal singlehood just because he wants to protect his family assets?
Prenups that protect both partners are everywhere and all over the place.
In fact, designing a fair prenup that protects and provides for both parties is the best way to keep it within the 'ironclad' status.
I'll send you a copy of mind if you want to leave the oor open to information.
There is a popular misconception about those with some level of wealth because of the high income they earn.
Along with that high income usually come higher financial responsibilities and committments.
Of course a marriage is a contract, not only because it requires a signature, but also because as you enter into it you assume responsibilities that you wouldn't have otherwise. If your girlfriend goes out and wrecks someone else's car you are not liable, but if it's your wife you are. So to see a marriage as not a contract is not dealing with reality. Of course it's not very romantic, but neither are all the sacrifices that are required to make a marriage work.
Thoughts?
This is a widely debated topic and a very sensitive one, so lets dig into it here!
If preserving romance is the main purpose of all marriages, well then marriage would not exist.
Marriage is the most demanding contract any person ever signs and the marriage contract is infact a government created prenup. Having a lawyer create your marriage contract/prenup and having her agree to the terms can benefit both parties now and into the future and if god-forbid you seperate through divorce.
Why should Signing that marriage "contract certificate" beOK, but signing a prenup agreement that protects previous assets is not?
Two people can have more romance in their marriage than anyone else in the world, but it is still a marriage contract certificate that they signed...with all the legal and financial implications it has. Validating the contractual aspects of marriage does not negate, antagonize or stand in the way of romance. Quite the contrary, when the married couple have understanding and agreement about money and other legal obligations of marriage, the romance increases.
A well prepared prenup, will protect the man's previous assets and income, something Mrs. new wife will have done nothing to create or help create.
And it should protect her as well by establishing a specific amount based on the number of marriage years, not lifestyle.
Again, kids are a complete different beast altogether.
Leave them out of any prenup you may consider getting.
Excuse often given: A man who is not willing to risk everything he has to get married should remain single.
Answer: Where is the logic to sentencing a man to eternal singlehood just because he wants to protect his family assets?
Prenups that protect both partners are everywhere and all over the place.
In fact, designing a fair prenup that protects and provides for both parties is the best way to keep it within the 'ironclad' status.
I'll send you a copy of mind if you want to leave the oor open to information.
There is a popular misconception about those with some level of wealth because of the high income they earn.
Along with that high income usually come higher financial responsibilities and committments.
Of course a marriage is a contract, not only because it requires a signature, but also because as you enter into it you assume responsibilities that you wouldn't have otherwise. If your girlfriend goes out and wrecks someone else's car you are not liable, but if it's your wife you are. So to see a marriage as not a contract is not dealing with reality. Of course it's not very romantic, but neither are all the sacrifices that are required to make a marriage work.
Thoughts?
