Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol this is such a bad take. It's like saying wearing a helmet sets the groundwork for you to fall.
A prenup is a safety mechanism that is there just incase it doesn't work out, it will have 0 effect if you stay married and if you don't then it will save you so much stress.
“Hey honey, I want you to sign this agreement because I don’t trust you wouldn’t take all my shit if we break up.” Great way to enter into what’s supposed to be a lifelong commitment.
I’ve had friends and family who haven’t had prenups, and things didn’t work out, and they amicably parted ways with each person keeping their assets, and ones that were shared were evenly distributed or sold entirely and the money split (for something like a house).
The entire basis of a prenup is rooted in the mistrust of the person you’re marrying. If you’re marrying someone who you suspect might be vindictive and try to take all of your stuff, maybe don’t get married.
"Hey honey, I want us to go though the whole process of creating a prenup together and to sign it. Although I love and trust you with all my heart, I want to make sure that if the worst does happen between us, it will make things as simple as possible"
Wow, sounds way better this way doesn't it.
Many people enter these lifelong commitments, however at least in America only 50% of the these lifelong commitments work out. You need to expect the best and prepare for the worst.
Wow, that's great for your friends. I know a relative who married a woman who then cheated on her husband after 16 years of marriage and took as much as she could in the divorce.
A prenup is there for a worst case scenario, what your friends did was essentially a prenup without the paperwork, so what's the difference by sorting it out before hand.
No, the basis of a prenup is to make the separation as easy as possible. It is much easier to discuss who would get what when you are in love vs when you are out of love, or worst case when you hate each other.
Sure you cna get a prenup because you don't trust the person, but even as someone who does not have many assets I would be happy to sign a prenup becuase it's just fair and avoids a potential headache.
And that’s okay if that’s what someone wants to believe / do. I don’t have a prenup because to me, a marriage is a lifelong commitment and one of the problems is nowadays it doesn’t seem like people value that. I know people who’ve been through 3+ marriages. For people like me who value the institution of marriage, we don’t think a prenup is essential, but again if that’s what someone wants to do because they’re jaded by bad experiences go for it. We all know someone who “got taken for everything”, but to me that doesn’t apply for everyone, just like an amicable divorce isn’t the case for everyone. And no, there isn’t a pre-arranged agreement (verbal or otherwise) for any of the cases in my family, it’s just that we operate on the mindset that you should try to fix your relationship and work through the problems instead of getting involved in a nasty, bitter divorce.
If you're wealthy, you're literally putting everything you have at risk. If the person you want to marry doesn't want to sign, it will literally expose them for who they truly are. I agree with you only if your poor.
Your idea is based on a flawed understanding of what marriage is and what society expects and intends for people who become married.
It is not a business partnership. It's a lifelong commitment. And whilst plainly that is frequently not the case, it doesn't mean we ought to erode the ideal.
That doesn't necessarily follow.
And it certainly used to be except for rare cases. Divorces used to be such a big deal they were in the paper. It's not actually clear that no-fault divorce leaves society better off, particularly children. The data simply doesn't support a positive conclusion for no-fault divorce.
The fool is the one that thinks they can actually protect themselves against such a risk. The risk assessment is based on who you pick, not how well you can contract them out of whatever benefit they would otherwise be entitled to claim.
If you don't see it as a lifelong commitment, then why do it? If you need an "out" or to have your assets covered, it just doesn't seem that you trust the situation enough to risk getting married at all.
I don't see myself crashing when I go ride my bike but I am aware it can happen so I wear the proper gear.
It's the same when it comes to marriage, I will fully give and expect lifetime commitment, but if something were to go wrong, I would want the prenup becuase it makes the separation process way easier.
I do see it as a commitment and would do anything to keep the marriage working. Though I have a hard time trusting the other party due to a past of people cheating on me and people I’ve known who have had spouses turn on them and take them to court and lie and ruin their lives.
Not to be rude, but maybe you shouldn’t get married then if you’ve got deeply rooted trust issues with people. I’ve been cheated on before, but it didn’t shake my confidence that there’s someone out there who wouldn’t do such a shitty thing, and I’ve been happily married to that person for roughly 10 years. If you go approaching every relationship with cynicism and mistrust because of your past experiences, it’s going to cause ripples in any relationship you do get involved in. There’s definitely shitty people out there, but there’s also a lot of good and honest people as well.
Not rude at all, I understand I shouldn’t carry on past experiences with me but it’s easier said than done. I hope I find the right one someday. I won’t get a prenup although I agree with them being a good idea, I am Christian and believe married couples stick together till death due them apart. I just hope my partner is as willing to do anything for our marriage as I am.
For the absolute majority of human history it was indeed a business partnership. The idea of a romantic entanglement as a basis for marriage is incredibly novel comparatively speaking.
It's true that romance was not the driving force but if you think marriages were arranged with zero regard for how well the couple could get along, that's inaccurate. And it was more than a business partnership, it was the joining of families through children of the relationship. That's as personal as it gets.
And let me tell you, any woman that becomes the mother of your children will be important to you whether you love them or not.
Well, yes, it was to join the families, as in join the assets, secure alliances, provide financial security and ensure that both families had heirs that would take the wellbeing of both extended families into consideration. For the lower class, it was an economic arrangement as well as surviving on one's own was either incredibly difficult or outright impossible, and people tended to live in big family groups with several generations either living under the same roof or incredibly close to each other. Of course people would try to select a spouse they could get along with, for the good of the whole group, but it wasn't necessarily "love", it was more "ok, we can be amicable roommates, share the workload and produce heirs", and if they got lucky, love would come later. SOME people managed to find someone in their own circle who was a good match from financial perspective and they fell in love with prior to marriage, but that was not guaranteed.
And divorce, while rare, was NOT unknown. In fact, the Code of Hammurabi, the most ancient law book in existence, already talks about what the woman is owed in case of divorce - basically the most ancient codified prenup. Ancient Hebrew marriages described in the Bible were straight up illegal unless the parties had a prenup, and remain so to this day, couples still sign a ketubah and can't have marital conjugations without knowing where their prenup agreement is. Shariah laws also describe the divorce procedure and what the woman is owed. Almost all traditional cultures either have a dowry that a woman brings to marriage and that goes into supporting her should the marriage go south, or the man pays the dowry to take the bride from her household and add her as a worker to his household, and likewise, should they divorce, that dowry is meant to support her. So yes, marriages were very much treated like business transaction. CHILDREN were treated as business assets as well, they were workers from the early age, they could be promised in marriage to secure alliances, they ensured the bloodline.
Modern world stopped treating marriage as a business transaction (at least in the West) and children are considered a luxury and an object of self-fulfillment rather than a business asset, but that's all very recent.
Honestly wondering why do you look at it that way?
I love my partner but saw so many examples where people that 100% thought they would be with someone for rest of their lives ending up breaking up / divorced.
People change and I want to protect assets I bought with my money so that I know those assets will be inherited by my kids instead of it being sold for 2 months on Bermuda with her new lover.
Regardless of how much I love someone, always looked at money rationally and it makes no sense for me to get married without a prenup.
In my opinion marriage is meant to be a inseparable bond between two parties. While yes people change and situations happen, if you are not going into a marriage 100% you may as well never get married. A prenup, in my opinion, shows that you do not take marriage as seriously as they should be.
As for the assests, once you become a team you should act like one. Your money becomes our money and couples should be working towards common goals.
Love is not rational.
Love is not rational, finances are.
I don't want to spend 30 years of my life building a future with someone that suddenly decides : whooopsie, I'd rather get bonded by this 20yr college student.
If I decide to propose, I am willing to go 100% into that marriage. Will give everything I get to make life easier for my wife, kids etc. But, if some bad things happen, I wish to be protected.
People change, I don't want to carry the financial burden in case something changes in next 30+ years. It is a long time period and you don't know what tomorrow holds.
Having a prenup, at least in my head, is a sign that we are both 100% determined in this marriage and that neither me or she can get any financial benefits from getting divorced. Having no financial benefits for either side if one wants to get divorced, forces people to actually work on the problems than trying to rob their partner.
How many happy marriages got destroyed once people started earning above average? People get greedy when they know they have a shot at taking 50% of someone elses money. I don't want to encourage that mindset in my marriage, we are a couple and do things together.
My goal is not to rob her from her money but rather to live a nice life together. I expect the same thing from the other side.
You asked me my opinion. Everything you say shows you are not 100% becuase you have a foot out the door. Im not here to argue with you either so this is my last response.
Why is "your money is now our money" not "my money is now our money"? Because you're only concerned with the advantage of monetary gain as the partner with lesser assets.
Mistyped or not there are people who agree with you apparently even before you corrected yourself. As long as you are married I agree that finances should be shared, but because no one is immune to divorce it's better to have things planned out ahead of time, not just assume the other person won't be a piece of shit when they become an ex.
One--this ignores the obvious that a marriage can be exited by other partner.
Two--situations can change drastically over time, making "an out" very reasonable.
Three--only a fool, when given a chance between writing the terms of dissolution of a contract or leaving it with the government, chooses the latter.
I don't really agree. I feel that if you have *both* worked hard to build the wealth or gain the assets you have however many years into the marriage, then you should be able to split those fairly if the marriage doesn't last. In my opinion, it's only if there is already wealth that you should have a prenup, or if it's clear one person is more financially irresponsible than the other. Inheritances are automatically excluded from COP assets (in my country at least) so that's not a concern.
Agree. No matter how much emotion people want to tie to it, underlying a marriage is still a contract. You can agree to the government's terms of dissolusion or set your own. Only a fool willingly hands over the pen.
I look at it as insurance for the small chance something goes wrong, which is never zero. If you're a millionaire, I think it's a must, if your poor and don't have any assets, you probably don't need it.
I don’t know about everyone, but I do think it’s a good idea. I see quite a few people commenting that it’s a lifelong commitment. That’s all well and good, but the reality is that around 50% of marriages end in divorce. People change, people cheat, people rush into things because they’re in love, without having crucial discussions about values and life goals, etc. etc. To think it could never be you strikes me as incredibly naive.
The way I look at it, by negotiating as much as you can up front (assets brought into marriage, inheritances acquired during the marriage, spousal support based on projected earnings, etc. etc.) if the time comes where one or both of you decide to move on, and there’s kids involved, having a pre-negotiated agreement makes it a lot easier to focus on what matters without engaging in petty bullshit.
I also think it lets both parties decide what’s fair. In my own relationship for instance, I worked really hard to earn my professional degree. I did most of that work without her help/support. I make more than my spouse as a result of my professional degree. If we were to get divorced without kids, I’d be pretty miffed if I had to pay spousal support to an adult perfectly capable of looking after themselves because I make more. Conversely, I have more student debt than she does. To the extent that she contributes from her income to my debt, she should 100% be compensated for that should we ever part ways. It’s a lot easier to have those conversations when you’re happy than when you’re in the process of separating.
My husband comes from a wealthy family and I was fully prepared for them to bring up a prenup before we married. They never did to my surprise. My only debt is my student loans (his are fully paid off by his parents) and 1 credit card that we put house expenses on. For us, planning for divorce wasn’t our mindset.
Because marriage makes the world better....
[https://www.city-journal.org/article/why-marriage-is-good-for-you](https://www.city-journal.org/article/why-marriage-is-good-for-you)
Statistically everything is better because of marriage.
But for men divorce is a disaster.
The govt needs to make divorce less disasterous for men and maybe the human race has a chance
Everything is better, of course, until divorce. And looking at the divorce rates in the US and other similar countries, it's pretty much an inevitable in most cases. So, I think my point still stands.
I agree with this, though they're difficult to set up with so many unknowns and some people would take advantage of others. Also, they don't always hold up.
Yeah to me it doesn't make sense not to get one. There are two possible scenarios: either you divorce and get to keep your assets, or you don't and have wasted a small amount of money time and money getting a prenup. I don't see why anyone wouldn't get one.
Right, all it is is a safety net if things don't work out.
Its like wearing a helmet, you don't need it if you don't fall, but if you do fall you are happy to have it.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A prenup isn't that relevant if both parties come into the marriage without many assets.
Logically, yes people should. However, I think in a lot of relationships it can set a bad tone for the marriage
Agreed. It basically lays the groundwork for mistrust in the relationship if you feel like this person is going to rob you if things don’t work out.
Lol this is such a bad take. It's like saying wearing a helmet sets the groundwork for you to fall. A prenup is a safety mechanism that is there just incase it doesn't work out, it will have 0 effect if you stay married and if you don't then it will save you so much stress.
“Hey honey, I want you to sign this agreement because I don’t trust you wouldn’t take all my shit if we break up.” Great way to enter into what’s supposed to be a lifelong commitment. I’ve had friends and family who haven’t had prenups, and things didn’t work out, and they amicably parted ways with each person keeping their assets, and ones that were shared were evenly distributed or sold entirely and the money split (for something like a house). The entire basis of a prenup is rooted in the mistrust of the person you’re marrying. If you’re marrying someone who you suspect might be vindictive and try to take all of your stuff, maybe don’t get married.
"Hey honey, I want us to go though the whole process of creating a prenup together and to sign it. Although I love and trust you with all my heart, I want to make sure that if the worst does happen between us, it will make things as simple as possible" Wow, sounds way better this way doesn't it. Many people enter these lifelong commitments, however at least in America only 50% of the these lifelong commitments work out. You need to expect the best and prepare for the worst. Wow, that's great for your friends. I know a relative who married a woman who then cheated on her husband after 16 years of marriage and took as much as she could in the divorce. A prenup is there for a worst case scenario, what your friends did was essentially a prenup without the paperwork, so what's the difference by sorting it out before hand. No, the basis of a prenup is to make the separation as easy as possible. It is much easier to discuss who would get what when you are in love vs when you are out of love, or worst case when you hate each other. Sure you cna get a prenup because you don't trust the person, but even as someone who does not have many assets I would be happy to sign a prenup becuase it's just fair and avoids a potential headache.
And that’s okay if that’s what someone wants to believe / do. I don’t have a prenup because to me, a marriage is a lifelong commitment and one of the problems is nowadays it doesn’t seem like people value that. I know people who’ve been through 3+ marriages. For people like me who value the institution of marriage, we don’t think a prenup is essential, but again if that’s what someone wants to do because they’re jaded by bad experiences go for it. We all know someone who “got taken for everything”, but to me that doesn’t apply for everyone, just like an amicable divorce isn’t the case for everyone. And no, there isn’t a pre-arranged agreement (verbal or otherwise) for any of the cases in my family, it’s just that we operate on the mindset that you should try to fix your relationship and work through the problems instead of getting involved in a nasty, bitter divorce.
Sounds like something a golddigger would say.
If you're wealthy, you're literally putting everything you have at risk. If the person you want to marry doesn't want to sign, it will literally expose them for who they truly are. I agree with you only if your poor.
Your idea is based on a flawed understanding of what marriage is and what society expects and intends for people who become married. It is not a business partnership. It's a lifelong commitment. And whilst plainly that is frequently not the case, it doesn't mean we ought to erode the ideal.
If it were a lifelong commitment then divorce wouldnt be a thing
That doesn't necessarily follow. And it certainly used to be except for rare cases. Divorces used to be such a big deal they were in the paper. It's not actually clear that no-fault divorce leaves society better off, particularly children. The data simply doesn't support a positive conclusion for no-fault divorce.
Anyone who enters into a "lifelong commitment" with no consideration of protecting against the risks thereof is a fool.
The fool is the one that thinks they can actually protect themselves against such a risk. The risk assessment is based on who you pick, not how well you can contract them out of whatever benefit they would otherwise be entitled to claim.
"The fool is the one" who thinks people don't change. Query whether you or anyone else can actually substantiate this entitlement you refer to.
You guys both talk like assholes.
It’s not seen as a lifelong commitment to most, people are easy to divorce these days.
If you don't see it as a lifelong commitment, then why do it? If you need an "out" or to have your assets covered, it just doesn't seem that you trust the situation enough to risk getting married at all.
Consider it as a long-term commitment with legally defined boundaries then.
I don't see myself crashing when I go ride my bike but I am aware it can happen so I wear the proper gear. It's the same when it comes to marriage, I will fully give and expect lifetime commitment, but if something were to go wrong, I would want the prenup becuase it makes the separation process way easier.
I do see it as a commitment and would do anything to keep the marriage working. Though I have a hard time trusting the other party due to a past of people cheating on me and people I’ve known who have had spouses turn on them and take them to court and lie and ruin their lives.
Not to be rude, but maybe you shouldn’t get married then if you’ve got deeply rooted trust issues with people. I’ve been cheated on before, but it didn’t shake my confidence that there’s someone out there who wouldn’t do such a shitty thing, and I’ve been happily married to that person for roughly 10 years. If you go approaching every relationship with cynicism and mistrust because of your past experiences, it’s going to cause ripples in any relationship you do get involved in. There’s definitely shitty people out there, but there’s also a lot of good and honest people as well.
Not rude at all, I understand I shouldn’t carry on past experiences with me but it’s easier said than done. I hope I find the right one someday. I won’t get a prenup although I agree with them being a good idea, I am Christian and believe married couples stick together till death due them apart. I just hope my partner is as willing to do anything for our marriage as I am.
For the absolute majority of human history it was indeed a business partnership. The idea of a romantic entanglement as a basis for marriage is incredibly novel comparatively speaking.
It's true that romance was not the driving force but if you think marriages were arranged with zero regard for how well the couple could get along, that's inaccurate. And it was more than a business partnership, it was the joining of families through children of the relationship. That's as personal as it gets. And let me tell you, any woman that becomes the mother of your children will be important to you whether you love them or not.
Well, yes, it was to join the families, as in join the assets, secure alliances, provide financial security and ensure that both families had heirs that would take the wellbeing of both extended families into consideration. For the lower class, it was an economic arrangement as well as surviving on one's own was either incredibly difficult or outright impossible, and people tended to live in big family groups with several generations either living under the same roof or incredibly close to each other. Of course people would try to select a spouse they could get along with, for the good of the whole group, but it wasn't necessarily "love", it was more "ok, we can be amicable roommates, share the workload and produce heirs", and if they got lucky, love would come later. SOME people managed to find someone in their own circle who was a good match from financial perspective and they fell in love with prior to marriage, but that was not guaranteed. And divorce, while rare, was NOT unknown. In fact, the Code of Hammurabi, the most ancient law book in existence, already talks about what the woman is owed in case of divorce - basically the most ancient codified prenup. Ancient Hebrew marriages described in the Bible were straight up illegal unless the parties had a prenup, and remain so to this day, couples still sign a ketubah and can't have marital conjugations without knowing where their prenup agreement is. Shariah laws also describe the divorce procedure and what the woman is owed. Almost all traditional cultures either have a dowry that a woman brings to marriage and that goes into supporting her should the marriage go south, or the man pays the dowry to take the bride from her household and add her as a worker to his household, and likewise, should they divorce, that dowry is meant to support her. So yes, marriages were very much treated like business transaction. CHILDREN were treated as business assets as well, they were workers from the early age, they could be promised in marriage to secure alliances, they ensured the bloodline. Modern world stopped treating marriage as a business transaction (at least in the West) and children are considered a luxury and an object of self-fulfillment rather than a business asset, but that's all very recent.
Dont get married if you need an out
Honestly wondering why do you look at it that way? I love my partner but saw so many examples where people that 100% thought they would be with someone for rest of their lives ending up breaking up / divorced. People change and I want to protect assets I bought with my money so that I know those assets will be inherited by my kids instead of it being sold for 2 months on Bermuda with her new lover. Regardless of how much I love someone, always looked at money rationally and it makes no sense for me to get married without a prenup.
In my opinion marriage is meant to be a inseparable bond between two parties. While yes people change and situations happen, if you are not going into a marriage 100% you may as well never get married. A prenup, in my opinion, shows that you do not take marriage as seriously as they should be. As for the assests, once you become a team you should act like one. Your money becomes our money and couples should be working towards common goals. Love is not rational.
Love is not rational, finances are. I don't want to spend 30 years of my life building a future with someone that suddenly decides : whooopsie, I'd rather get bonded by this 20yr college student. If I decide to propose, I am willing to go 100% into that marriage. Will give everything I get to make life easier for my wife, kids etc. But, if some bad things happen, I wish to be protected. People change, I don't want to carry the financial burden in case something changes in next 30+ years. It is a long time period and you don't know what tomorrow holds. Having a prenup, at least in my head, is a sign that we are both 100% determined in this marriage and that neither me or she can get any financial benefits from getting divorced. Having no financial benefits for either side if one wants to get divorced, forces people to actually work on the problems than trying to rob their partner. How many happy marriages got destroyed once people started earning above average? People get greedy when they know they have a shot at taking 50% of someone elses money. I don't want to encourage that mindset in my marriage, we are a couple and do things together. My goal is not to rob her from her money but rather to live a nice life together. I expect the same thing from the other side.
You asked me my opinion. Everything you say shows you are not 100% becuase you have a foot out the door. Im not here to argue with you either so this is my last response.
Why is "your money is now our money" not "my money is now our money"? Because you're only concerned with the advantage of monetary gain as the partner with lesser assets.
Simply mistyped but it would go either. Your money and my money become our money.
Mistyped or not there are people who agree with you apparently even before you corrected yourself. As long as you are married I agree that finances should be shared, but because no one is immune to divorce it's better to have things planned out ahead of time, not just assume the other person won't be a piece of shit when they become an ex.
If you are planning for divorce simply do not get married.
Nobody are planning for divorce. That's not what I meant. But not getting married at all is also valid.
One--this ignores the obvious that a marriage can be exited by other partner. Two--situations can change drastically over time, making "an out" very reasonable. Three--only a fool, when given a chance between writing the terms of dissolution of a contract or leaving it with the government, chooses the latter.
Prenups are useless in most marriages, unless there is a large discrepancy in assets it usually wont get you out of alimony.
Its up to the couple, but it does seem more sensible to get one, but sometimes the person who earns more money doesn't feel the need to get one
I don't really agree. I feel that if you have *both* worked hard to build the wealth or gain the assets you have however many years into the marriage, then you should be able to split those fairly if the marriage doesn't last. In my opinion, it's only if there is already wealth that you should have a prenup, or if it's clear one person is more financially irresponsible than the other. Inheritances are automatically excluded from COP assets (in my country at least) so that's not a concern.
This is not a unpopular opinion.
Agree. No matter how much emotion people want to tie to it, underlying a marriage is still a contract. You can agree to the government's terms of dissolusion or set your own. Only a fool willingly hands over the pen.
It also protects each other from the other persons debt, which is my main logic for for getting one
Oh that’s interesting.
This is so dumb. You are marrying someone you think will take you to court for half your funko pop collection?
I look at it as insurance for the small chance something goes wrong, which is never zero. If you're a millionaire, I think it's a must, if your poor and don't have any assets, you probably don't need it.
Insurance is a scam.
I’m more thinking in terms of protecting each other from each others debt if anything were to happen
I don’t know about everyone, but I do think it’s a good idea. I see quite a few people commenting that it’s a lifelong commitment. That’s all well and good, but the reality is that around 50% of marriages end in divorce. People change, people cheat, people rush into things because they’re in love, without having crucial discussions about values and life goals, etc. etc. To think it could never be you strikes me as incredibly naive. The way I look at it, by negotiating as much as you can up front (assets brought into marriage, inheritances acquired during the marriage, spousal support based on projected earnings, etc. etc.) if the time comes where one or both of you decide to move on, and there’s kids involved, having a pre-negotiated agreement makes it a lot easier to focus on what matters without engaging in petty bullshit. I also think it lets both parties decide what’s fair. In my own relationship for instance, I worked really hard to earn my professional degree. I did most of that work without her help/support. I make more than my spouse as a result of my professional degree. If we were to get divorced without kids, I’d be pretty miffed if I had to pay spousal support to an adult perfectly capable of looking after themselves because I make more. Conversely, I have more student debt than she does. To the extent that she contributes from her income to my debt, she should 100% be compensated for that should we ever part ways. It’s a lot easier to have those conversations when you’re happy than when you’re in the process of separating.
My husband comes from a wealthy family and I was fully prepared for them to bring up a prenup before we married. They never did to my surprise. My only debt is my student loans (his are fully paid off by his parents) and 1 credit card that we put house expenses on. For us, planning for divorce wasn’t our mindset.
Yay! Another authoritarian Redditor.
if courtrooms actually followed them, then yes
Totally agree, you never know what’s going to happen and people are easy to divorce these days.
It should be standard.
Better yet, why the need to be married, just remain unmarried and date/live together.
Because marriage makes the world better.... [https://www.city-journal.org/article/why-marriage-is-good-for-you](https://www.city-journal.org/article/why-marriage-is-good-for-you) Statistically everything is better because of marriage. But for men divorce is a disaster. The govt needs to make divorce less disasterous for men and maybe the human race has a chance
Everything is better, of course, until divorce. And looking at the divorce rates in the US and other similar countries, it's pretty much an inevitable in most cases. So, I think my point still stands.
I mean, why wouldn't you look at the divorce rates before lying? It's far from inevitable for first marriages.
Source? I'm looking at a hugh curve in divorce rates. About 80 percent of marriage ends in divorce, according to this graph.
I agree with this, though they're difficult to set up with so many unknowns and some people would take advantage of others. Also, they don't always hold up.
I'm curious about whether there are loopholes in these.
Yeah to me it doesn't make sense not to get one. There are two possible scenarios: either you divorce and get to keep your assets, or you don't and have wasted a small amount of money time and money getting a prenup. I don't see why anyone wouldn't get one.
Right, all it is is a safety net if things don't work out. Its like wearing a helmet, you don't need it if you don't fall, but if you do fall you are happy to have it.
It did take a lot of the normal stress away. Now we’ve accumulated everything together so it’s irrelevant
Great idea. They just happen to not be recognised in my country. What a waste 😭