[Blitzula]

Moving on from diplomacy, it'd be interesting to know how that 50% statistic breaks down. I wonder how many of those marriages are first time, and how many are second or third marriages. That would be a way to address the veracity of serial remarriaging's significant effect on the divorce rate.

Found an interesting article which maintains the divorce rate for never married partners is more like 41% or less.

http://www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html

If true, that would mean that the serial divorcers make up about 20% of the divorcing population.

 

[Hirsch]

Consider the following scenario (which is actually fairly common). Pair marries. Wife works, putting husband through medical school. Husband completes internship, falls for young nurse and wants divorce. Assets to split during marriage: not much. And yet, one party has sacrificed professional development for the couple, in the interest of developing the other's future. No assets, and low standard of living at time of divorce. Wife winds up with nothing, husband has degree and lucrative future.

Graduate education is a marriage killer. Wife should have anticipated, and had a written agreement with an interest in husband's future earnings, based on investment in his education.

The rule of thumb is to work for the best, but plan for the worst. That's all a prenup is. It may never be used. But if it's needed, it's usually really needed.

"Your love gives me such a thrill, but your love don't pay no bills..."

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Quote:

Originally Posted by usc goose /img/forum/go_quote.gif My plan is to marry for the money. Anyone else with me on this one?

Every woman ever born

 

[fatcat28037]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hirsch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Consider the following scenario (which is actually fairly common). Pair marries. Wife works, putting husband through medical school. Husband completes internship, falls for young nurse and wants divorce. Assets to split during marriage: not much. And yet, one party has sacrificed professional development for the couple, in the interest of developing the other's future. No assets, and low standard of living at time of divorce. Wife winds up with nothing, husband has degree and lucrative future. Graduate education is a marriage killer. Wife should have anticipated, and had a written agreement with an interest in husband's future earnings, based on investment in his education. The rule of thumb is to work for the best, but plan for the worst. That's all a prenup is. It may never be used. But if it's needed, it's usually really needed. "Your love gives me such a thrill, but your love don't pay no bills..."

Kinda' my story, only she went to law school.

 

[XGJFilmsX]

prenups are saying basically, when we get divorced you get this much money, so if you have that then why get married if your planning it to fail.

 

[Old Pa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatcat28037 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kinda' my story, only she went to law school.

Not unlike marrying a psych undergrad who majored to minishrink herself.

 

[Old Pa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by XGJFilmsX /img/forum/go_quote.gif prenups are saying basically, when we get divorced you get this much money, so if you have that then why get married if your planning it to fail.

No. See my earlier post.

 

[RYCeT]

If you have any significant assets, it will be foolish to not even consider prenups, unless you want to buy off your wife with a big diamond (Kobe) or share the same frustation as Paul McCartney

 

[Mister Crash]

I'm in agreement with TopShelf. I consider per-nuptial agreements to be like "divorce insurance". When you buy a homeowners' insurance policy, you're not counting on your house burning down. But if it does burn down, you're protected. Similarly, you can enter into a pre-nuptial agreement without expecting to get divorced, but if you do, you have already outlined how things are to be distributed. When you consider that about 70% of divorces are initiated by women, and they usually have considerably more to gain from the divorce than their husbands do, a pre-nuptial agreement may actually keep a marriage together longer by reducing the financial incentive for a wife to get a divorce (though it might make men more likely to initiate divorce if their financial obligations would be lessened).

I think it would be a great idea if it was impossible to get a marriage license without having a pre-nuptial agreement. It would force people to actually sit down with their partners and discuss these issues up front, which I don't think a lot of people do. It doesn't have to be a 50-50 split of assets, or joint custody of children, but there should be something agreed upon. The most contentious issues after a divorce are money and child custody, and if there are provisions for both outlined in a pre-nuptial agreement, it should ease the divorce process. Of course, some people have contested their own pre-nuptial agreements, and have won, so they're not bulletproof.

Personally, marriage isn't for me; I like to keep the state out of my affairs whenever possible. But if I ever were to get married, a pre-nuptial agreement would not be optional.

 

[jcn3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illah /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe my wife and I are just progressive, but we openly discussed a pre-nup before we got married. There was no, "OH MY GOD YOU DON'T LOVE ME!!!" crap on either side. We both understand the realities of the modern world. . . . There's a mutual understanding that if we don't work out we'll just part ways. We're both too proud to take things from the other anyway, I don't think we'd get any satisfaction out of that. --Illah

I agree -- there's nothing wrong with pre-nups and it doesn't reflect on the strength of the relationship or the level of trust.

I've been married over 16 years and we do have a pre-nup. I don't ever see us needing to even look at it.

condemning a relationship or criticizing the document shows more a lack of understanding of the individuals' situations and the reality of how divorces play out.

in this case, there's no need for one -- they're only needed if there is something substantial to protect.