Prenuptial Agreements Are Romantic
May 17, 2007
When 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