As a society, it is apparently in the minority to marry for love. On the surface, it is implied that love is the reason, but behind our backs, there’s a different motive. People don’t really get to know their significant others anymore. Otherwise, why would they need prenuptial agreements?
Some people really need prenups. Anyone who uses anything material to get and keep the opposite sex needs them. They are highly likely to attract materialistic, shallow souls for some reason. Also, the partners those people attract will appreciate prenups. Otherwise, what’s in it for them?
When I hear people’s comments about prenups, I wonder why they are so defensive about love. Of course, I’ve been told it’s about money and not love. So why get engaged, much less married? How many times has the average engaged person trusted their partner with their body before said engagement? This is America. This is the place where absolutely anyone could sport a printed t-shirt advertising their favorite manufacturer of bondage products, but couldn’t trust a partner about money.
“Let me say this tenderly: you can do anything to your partner’s body except take all of its money,” says the prenup. That’s the gist of it. I once met someone who included a clause about dishwashing in a prenup, and yes, I laughed. There are others that say that in the case of divorce, each person will maintain ownership of whatever material belongings they brought to the relationship. If that isn’t planning to fail, just what is it? Actually, I think a prenup is a plan to fail at marriage. A prenup is admitting to not knowing your partner well enough to develop trust. It says that you are not willing to truly find someone who is worthy, submit to them, and compromise.
Every chance I get, I make sure to mention that people spend too much time planning weddings and not nearly enough on succeeding at marriage. It’s true. Also, I am not alone in my opinion, because I have seen and/or heard it expressed elsewhere in at least one other way. The stories of bridesmaids who hate their dresses, the right caterer being the wrong caterer, and fussing over the guest list all prove it. A wedding is to be joyous; I actually overheard a woman tell a friend that the wedding was about getting gifts. It so happens that as a child, a neighbor kid referred to birthday parties in much the same way, mentioning that she only invited certain people just for that reason.
Back to the point…maybe wealthy people should have prenups. But the middle class motives are different. They may not be wealthy, but stay-at-home mothers should seriously consider a viable backup plan, something Suze Orman has been saying for years.
Anyway, the single-income family is a dormant volcano until a divorce arrives for dinner. Who will provide for the wife and kids? Only an indecent husband would create this scenario and try to screw over the wife. Is divorce so time-consuming that husbands forget that the children will probably end up with their mothers? Many, if not most judges, are men. Typically, a child’s nurturing comes from its mother. Do they know that those judges will grant custody of the children to the mothers, make the fathers pay the mothers for them, give up a house and a car, and let dads move to an apartments or back home with their parents? They’ve thought out dads will have to do. Concerning child support, I am now wary of applauding fathers for taking custody of their children from competent mothers. Many–not all or a majority–of them are trying to avoid child support payments as opposed to really cherishing their children.
Then again, there are those who stay together but should clearly divorce. What kind of man complains about a woman to a fault and then misses her when she is gone for good? Why can’t he just say and show that he loves her and leave the whining aside? I know a man who was eaten alive by his ex-wife’s lawyer. What he didn’t know was that his wife would have been happy with just having her car paid off ($5,000), a new house in a middle-class neighborhood ($400,000), and a year’s pay ($40,000). The funny part is not only that she told me this, but also that it was nowhere near the 50 percent of the assets entitled to her by California law. She didn’t want child support, spousal support, or alimony. According to her, if he had been willing to discuss it, she would have told him.
No, they didn’t have a prenup.
Leave a Reply