Prenuptial Agreements Are Romantic

May 17, 2007

pre-nup.jpgWhen the man is rich, or even if he isn’t – he still may have his expensive home or car or other assets to consider – a woman will say prenuptial agreements are so unromantic.

Well, she would, wouldn’t she? But the divorce statistics show that a man is a mug to imagine that he can put his faith in any woman’s love.

But our love is the exception, the most special one that has ever been, she will assure us, so it simply isn’t necessary in our case.

And by now, our budding wise male hero will surely be realistic enough to accept that none of us is that special. Otherwise you see, our lady will clothe us in the Emperor’s New Clothes, which every good salesman and saleswoman knows, only the most special of people can see.

We should be aware that this kind of vanity is a weapon that can be used against us in countless situations in life. That’s partly why all true religious scriptures emphasize the value of modesty – not only it is a more civilized way to be, but it’s also the ultimate form of psychic self-defense.

That is – the man without vanity (i.e. delusions) cannot long be deceived.

So let us reconsider this prenuptial agreement, from another point of view – from a man’s.

Why cannot he say to the woman “if I ensure with this agreement that should you turn against me, you cannot take all my possessions, surely it would only prove your love for me all the more, should you still wish to marry me, knowing that?”

Because the reality is that every man who owns more than Kwai Chang Caine from Kung Fu, i.e. more than rags, has got a problem that the law says if things go wrong, the woman can take a sizable part of his wealth, even if there is no love on either side any more, including the family home, perhaps any man’s greatest possession – for he is then a king without a castle.

Just by taking even a third, let alone half of a man’s assets, a woman could so seriously damage his finances that he is forced out of business or brought even to bankruptcy.

He may never recover his position again.

The more wealth a man has – like some of the wealthy movie actors and rock stars who are paying alimony to any number of women – the more secure he is that he can carry on in some fashion, but the trouble is, the more he has got, the less likely he is to be sure that any prospective woman in his life really wants him for himself.

If we are a wealthy man, it would be best for us to pretend we are a tramp, like Charlie Chaplin’s silent screen hero, and if the lady still wants us then on our own merit as a human being, it is a fair bet to say that we could really call that love.

But does anyone truly think we see such fantasies played out in real life?

On a gypsy caravan site, perhaps.

The sad fact however is that prenuptial agreements have no legal power in many Western countries at present, such as the UK, and their legitimacy varies from state to state even in America.

And why is this? – again, because women do not want things that way, as it dis-empowers them, and men are too naïve to notice and do anything about it.

The question is – are we going to trust ourselves – be masters of our own life – or are we going to fold on issues like this and put our trust in her?

She has got the choice – she doesn’t have to trust us, but is that not what we would wish for and expect of someone who loves us?

We get words saying she loves us, but we don’t get her trust as neither did Steve McQueen get it from Faye Dunaway in the original Thomas Crown Affair movie, who having already worked that out, devised a clever plan to ensure that if she really loved him and trusted him, she could join him in the safe location he was flying to with the loot from the second robbery he staged. Whereas if she betrayed him, as it turned out she finally did, she could still keep the money and the Rolls Royce.

What poetic justice!

But the tragedy is that though Faye Dunaway solved her case, she lost Thomas Crown in that process, so though he kept his freedom, they were both losers in “the game of love.”

So instead of letting finances ruin a relationship, why not put such a contract to her if possible that says – as long as she stays married to us, she will get the full benefits of our success and wealth, but not if she divorces or leaves us?

And if after a long happy life together, we die before her, she will inherit our wealth and thus be secure in her old age.

Is that not enough for her?

It is fully enough, if she has no plans to deceive and betray us, and if her love and respect is real.

And there is no hypocrisy in this, because if the wealth and property is that of the woman, she likewise should be able to protect her assets from an unscrupulous man, who might have wormed his way into her life on false pretenses, and promises of love.

The law however is of course a minefield – no contract is ever incontestable and secure – and the reality is, if we let a person into our lives of a malevolent disposition, we can never fully guarantee that the law will not favor them, or they will otherwise find some route to get their own way.

Source: Chapter Seventeen – I don’t love you any more – the horrors of divorce – A Men’s Liberation Guide to Women: Revised and enlarged 4th edition by Sam Fryman

YouTube Preview Image



11 Responses to “Prenuptial Agreements Are Romantic”

  1. K on August 2nd, 2007 5:12 pm

    Great article – great website – keep it up :)

  2. diz on August 16th, 2007 6:33 pm

    In current times a pre-nup may be advisable since today’s women may be more educated and self-reliant and have their own assets. So it depends on who you are involved with. I have a friend who was injured severely in a car accident, and though she is now, for all to see who don’t know her, a regular person, she has health issues that require her to have access to her $$$ she received in a settlement. This is a condition that will be with her the rest of her life. Thus, she needs a pre-nup if she were to marry, to protect her very life and well-being.

    Aside from that, if you are not going to have children, why get married? What about living together and knowing each day that you are CHOOSING to be with this person again for another day? This is not to sound short-termed, but to create awareness of how you are together. Taking each other for granted is too easily a product of marriage. Why not a daily commitment, like when things were good while you were still dating? (The same things that get stilted when you marry. A kind of having caught the bus so you stop running?)

    If you have children, that is another dimension entirely and their legal rights are paramount and the whole picture changes. Then if you choose to get married, you probably need to be most creative and broad-minded about how the pre-nup is worded.

  3. Shauna on August 17th, 2007 9:46 am

    I whole heartedly agree that prenuptial agreements are important. Many people get married thinking that they can “change” the person they’re marrying about important issues like; having kids, having pets, living in another state, not being a workaholic, or whatever.  Having a big list of what the relationship entails (as well as legal stuff in the event of a spouse’s death, or divorce) is very smart so that both parties know to some extent what they’re getting into.

    It’s smart for men, it’s smart for women. I think that a prenuptial to some extent should be legally required with a marriage license.

    After all, it’s better to be safe than sorry because you were “young and blind with love.”

  4. Mary on August 25th, 2007 12:59 pm

    I’m a woman and agree with this article. I initiated a pre-nup with my fiance so that money will never be a reason we are together. I also agree that any woman who wouldn’t sign a pre-nup has made her choice to marry at least in part based on the lifestyle – marrying the man promises. You aren’t buying her (or are you?) so money should not be a factor. Pre-nups provide an opportunity to focus on what’s important to one another. If a woman is insulted by a pre-nup, I think she has something to hide. (Her expectation that she will be entitled regardless of whether or not you live your entire lives together).

    I feel for all of you guys! I’m really disgusted by what i see.

  5. annieangel on August 29th, 2007 1:08 pm

    Pre-nups are great! As long as they spell out what the woman will get if there is a divorce, SUPER! But um, only an idiot would marry a man who tries to make her sign a paper saying that after he uses her for a f**k-toy for a while she can be tossed aside with nothing.

    Make them sign the pre-nups ladies! And make sure you’re protected for when the b*****d throws you out!!!

  6. Curiepoint on September 11th, 2007 3:40 am

    Pre-Nups are great in theory. They are more often than not set aside at the time of divorce, particularly if the terms of the agreement stipulate that the man gets anything that could be construed as fair and equitable division of property. Women commonly claim that they felt coerced into signing as a condition of the marriage going forward, and the mangina judges say “Oh, you poor bullied dear”.

    A roll of toilet paper has more worth than a pre-nup.

    As far as men using women as ***toys and then casting them aside, most divorces are initiated by women for no other reason than their husbands are continuously delighting them in their lives (i.e. they feeeeeel unfulfilled) or more likely she is a subscriber to AshleyMadison (dot) com and has gotten herself something going on the side.

    I’m all for equal division of jointly acquired property, but it had damned well better be 50/50. Anything they brought into the marriage independently immediately reverts back to them. If he bought the house, she has no rights to it whatsoever. If she did, then he doesn’t have a stake in it either.

  7. A Woman on October 14th, 2007 3:07 pm

    Prenuptial agreements have no place in a marriage–any marriage. If a man desires trust from his wife-to-be (as the writer of this articles purports), he should trust her as well. A prenup is a sure sign that the man who wants one doesn’t have much for the woman he claims to love and wants to marry.

    The problem? Men and women don’t take the time to choose wisely for a spouse. They try to take the easy route (i.e. men focus on her appearance to the exclusion of other, far more important criteria, while women focus on his wallet and what he can give her materially to the exclusion of far more important criteria) and then try to cover their butt with a prenup. It doesn’t work.

    It seems to me instead that you should find a person whom you can trust and marry her/him. If you think you’ll need a prenup, you’re probably marrying the wrong person. Furthermore, if you have trust issues, you are probably the wrong person for her/him to marry as well.

  8. jazzygc on November 17th, 2007 10:40 am

    I agree with an earlier posting that the law of the land (federal law) should require not only a pre-nup before marriage, but also that the pre-nup must identify and disclose all assets and debts that each party is bringing into the marriage including income streams from trusts, etc. that exist before the marriage.

    These income streams that are in place before the marriage occurs do not become community property, even if they are received after the marriage occurs. If a person commits fraud by not disclosing, then the offended party receives 100% (not 50%) of all assets acquired after the marriage (normally community property) in the case of divorce. These agreements must be iron-clad meaning a judge is powerless to nullify, but can only adjudicate under the terms of the agreement.

    This will help both women and men and will greatly reduce the activities occuring in divorce courts today.

  9. Curiepoint on December 18th, 2007 5:04 pm

    Nobody ever remains the exact same person they were before the marriage after the wedding takes place. As far as really knowing someone before you marry them, what if the intent was to deceive all along? There are lots of people out there who enter into marriage and relationships with sublimated ulterior motives. Most ugliness doesn’t come out until it’s too late, or the ugliness doesn’t start until the marriage takes the least little undelightful turn, which is the way of all life.

    And, how much time should anyone allot to “getting to know someone” before the marriage? Two years? Three? Twenty-Five? It doesn’t matter. A person can be wholesome and good and kind when the couple start off with very little, but turn into crazed harpies once the assets start piling up.

    The only trust anyone should “grant” anyone else in a marriage is the trust that they will live up to the oaths of Love, Honor, and Cherish. Any other issues of trust are off the table, and are earned, not granted. Hence, the pre-nup.

  10. Clark on January 9th, 2008 11:52 pm

    Actually, in this day and age, if you marry a woman who makes more than you, prenups are not a good idea. Nothing will make the laws more fair and equitable than if a woman has to pay out like a man.

    Aside from that, nothing will get rid of child support. A man will always have to pay this and keep the kids at the level of comfort that they were enjoying during the marriage (ie this is just ploy so even the man who has covered all the bases will still get screwed by the system, since the woman will enjoy most of the benefits of “child support”).

    Isn’t it just like womyn that they have to comment on this stuff here and not leave us men alone to do our own thing. Who is love starved for attention? Sound like the women are.

  11. Curiepoint on February 5th, 2008 3:04 pm

    I agree wholeheartedly about kids getting the most out of a financial arrangement, be it during a marriage or after it’s breakdown. But, to this end, the custodial parent had damned well account for every dime of child support that is being spent. It should be demonstrably proved to be for the child’s benefit directly. As it is, arbitrary numbers are set by the courts, and the non-custodial parent has no recourse. I’d rather give half my paycheck to my kids rather see one dime of it go to the ex.

Did you know there is someone right now in willing to cheat on their spouse to have fun with you?

You must be logged in to post a comment.