Would women be offended if the man asked her to sign a prenuptual agreement that basically says that she could not take any property the man had prior to marriage and that she could not ask for alimony/Spousal support in the event of a divorce??
2006-09-30 13:48:30 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Singles & Dating
Ehhh...that depends on the person. Some people see prenuptual agreements as necessary, and as a personal safeguard. This particular one isn't asking for much at all. In fact, without having a signed prenup on file, she still wouldnt be able to take any property that was his before the marriage, and most states won't grant alimony anymore anyway... so to not have one at all isn't that big a deal unless you're outrageously rich.
Other people see prenuptual agreememnts as their partner having trust issues and expecting the marriage to fail. I think either are understandable feeling towards them.
This particular one, however, isn't so bad, I would have them change it so that the woman did not receive alimony ONLY if she was the one who peitioned for divorce. It's not fair that the guy could cheat on her and then not have to pay you anything if she's been nothing but great to you and hasn't held a job in 30 years. As long as there's a prenuptual in place I would think about putting some safeguards in there for the woman too.
Good luck!
2006-09-30 13:59:02 · answer #1 · answered by Alli 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Apparently women are not offended by being asked to sign a prenuptual agreement, because so many do.
You, personally, may be offended by a man asking you to sign a prenuptual agreement, but if that man was financially secure, a millionaire or billionaire, capable and willing to provide you with a luxurious, glamorous life, would you say "No, I don't think I'll sign this agreement?"
Maybe if every marriage had prenuptual agreements signed by both parties, there would be fewer divorces. Children born into the marriage would be placed in the care of Human Services if under age 18 at the time of the divorce, and all property, real or otherwise, would be placed into a trust for the children when they turned 21.
In the event that no children had been born into the marriage at the time of divorce, the parents of the divorced couple would equally divide all property held by the divorced parties. If the parents are no longer living, any living grandparents get the property. If there were no living grandparents, property would be equally distributed among siblings.
2006-09-30 14:21:19 · answer #2 · answered by Baby Poots 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing wrong with this.
The stipulation with the alimony would be a problem. I would want alimony if the divorce happens after a certain time you have invested with this person, maybe 10-15 years min. and of course a reasonable amount from either party.
2006-09-30 13:53:37 · answer #3 · answered by skept1c 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell ya.
I would never marry a man for his money.
But that is just sort of a slap in the face.
when you get married, you should be thinking that you will last forever.
I know that realistically, that may not be the case. But you can't expect her not to be a little offended. It is almost as though you are saying "when our marriage fails, I don't want to give you any money or property. So, basically, I want to leave you with nothing after 5, 10, 20+ years of marriage"
2006-09-30 13:55:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would, yes. As a divorced woman, I might consider a limit to what I could have in case of a divorce, and I would not expect alimony, but if he is not willing to share with me to some extent no matter what happens, it is not a good match.
2006-09-30 13:51:57 · answer #5 · answered by catintrepid 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
AMEN. If anybody is so scared about the sanctity and fee of marriage being destroyed, why no longer outlaw divorce? i understand a myriad of divorced couples. i understand gay human beings, i understand non secular human beings, i understand non secular gay human beings, and that i understand that marriage is between the individuals getting married. in simple terms because 2 individuals are of diverse sexes would not lead them to extra dedicated, extra dependable, happier in a wedding ceremony! whats up, i'm a non secular individual, i understand what the bible says. again in 30 A.D., issues were a touch diverse. The bible also says that women individuals should not positioned on makeup and they ought to maintain their hair in braids. again in the day, this made sense for most causes, as did sex stipulations on marriage. The bible develop into written through people. no longer God.
2016-12-04 02:03:37 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you have to have a prenuptial agreement maybe your marrying the wrong person remember Till Death Do Us Part if you think theres a chance of divorce then rethink the wedding.
2006-09-30 13:57:18 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would be offended BUT if I had money and my man didn't I would ask him to sign one too . Now a days nothing goes right and you don't want to end up being broke
2006-09-30 13:51:25 · answer #8 · answered by ♥ Army Wife ♥ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is a good idea. If she wants to marry you she will do it. You should love a man not his money. I am a woman who believes in making her own way. I could never live off of a man.
2006-09-30 13:56:15 · answer #9 · answered by doc_is 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the woman. I personally think signing one is leaving the option open for a divorce. But if both parties are cool w/ it then go for it.
2006-09-30 13:52:50 · answer #10 · answered by bernie2u4 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋