Prenup Opinion?

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (319KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1920x1080px

If you are a girl I strongly recommend it.

If you are a boy, you better have a lot of intangibles to offer in exchange for the girl giving up the tangible.

I have an easy out: I told my parents that they should not give their permission for me to get married without a prenup. So I can wash my hands off it when the time comes. Unfortunately it looks like it's not something you can do.

>>17684168
i bring more to the table than money... if that's what you're saying.

>>17684169
yeah... unfortunately no

>>17684165

If you want to do it you should, it's like life insurance, you don't intend to die but it's a nice thought if things take a turn for the worse you aren't screwed over.

A mature partner will be understanding of this, even supportive as it's more of a hypothetical because neither of you ever see yourselves in that situation anyway.

>>17684204
that's what i think. but i also see the flip side: you don't trust me? / you don't love me enough to risk everything type of deal

>>17684217

I can understand some sulking or insecurity but that should be easy to reassure with a conversation about just protecting yourself if things out of your control affect the future, but you yourself have 0 intentions of ever leaving their side.

If that's not enough for them then I'd say they're upset about losing the benefits if things turn sour and not actually about you trusting or loving them.

>>17684217

It's not about trust or love, things change, often completely out of your control. You never know 10 years down the line what you both will think and feel, it's just insurance if things change, any self-sufficient adult should be able to understand this.

>>17684231
>If that's not enough for them then I'd say they're upset about losing the benefits if things turn sour and not actually about you trusting or loving them.
Personally, the idea that my husband has such a low opinion of me that he would need to find a legal way to protect himself in case things don't work out makes me feel truly sad.
I think that if someone marries me they know who I am and they know that I wouldn't fuck them over even if things didn't work out. The idea that he think I would makes me feel really bad.

>>17684243
You're exactly using the shaming tactics that a golddigging whore would.

>boohoo why don't you trust me

If you were sincere you wouldn't care about a prenup since you will be together for life anyway.

>>17684243

It's not about being fucked over by your spouse, it's the entitlements they're benefit to if things don't work out, it's a 50/50 split when in some (most) situations the husband is losing a lot more. Just be financially independent and not worry about not getting a share if you do divorce, it's a silly hypothetical anyway.

>>17684258
I make twice as much as my boyfriend, paid for his university and own the house we live in. I don't really have anything to gain from marrying him, and all to lose if we get married and divorce.

I'd rather never marry a person than marrying someone and feel like he doesn't trust me, or like he already thinks about what to do in case we get divorced.
In my opinion if you need a prenup it's clear that you don't want to stay together for the long run, or you don't believe you will, and you don't trust your partner.

I've seen more than a fair share of marriages going bad, decent people going insane over the smallest things they don't want to leave to their partners.

I absolutely agree on a necessity of a prenup for such things, and as an owner of an appartment would 100% make a prenup if it's allowed in the country of marriage to reclaim something from property of the spouse their owned before they entered in the marriage.

But in my country it's not allowed at all, so I think it won't be necessary.
Also in case of a prenup I would recommend you not to change the way you operate your property you buy together after the marriage (in my country it's 50/50, and I wholeheartedly agree on that, and unproportional changes seems unfair to me).

Femanon, if that's important

>>17684262

You sound incredibly immature. Your case is different in that your partner has no reason to want a pre-nup but there are plenty of successful people out there that have a lot to lose for matters out of their control, they trust you and want to be with you for life but who knows what the future will bring.

It's the same principle of making lifelong promises like "I'll love you forever" you don't know that, you can't promise such things, in 10 years you could very well be tired of your partner and want someone else, he's entitled to have some kind of insurance if that were to happen.

It has nothing to do with them not trusting and loving who you are this second, they just can't predict the future. If it's for their piece of mind and you don't ever intend to divorce then why does it bother you at all? It's 100% a hypothetical in that case.

>>17684165
I'd feel a twinge for sure, but I'd give them a chance to explain.
If it were reasonable, clear & concise, (including rules for how you'd "use the money for our life", I'd probably be ok with it.
Especially if this was an undeclared asset of yours, not something you'd been talking about or mentioning before presenting a prenup.

I'd get in contact with a professional if you haven't already, and see what kinds of options you'd have.
Might as well get advance directives out of the way while you're at it.

And then you just have to figure out how to bring it up with her.

>>17684243
It's not about a low opinion about you, it's about risk management.
Marriage is a big step for most people, including myself, and if I'm into this, it means I already trust you enough to remove me from life support, goddamnit. It doesn't mean I should go into this blinded and handcuffed, also we're talking only about previously owned property anyway, and your way of reasoning sounds like you'd really like to have something from that, which is unacceptable.

>>17684262
what you're saying is fairly irrational. your partner should have the freedom to secure their future from a potential volatile divorce. some people just aren't as carefree about life decisions and thats perfectly fine.

>>17684276
The idea of getting a prenup is contrasting to the idea of marriage itself. As I said, I'd rather never get married than get married with a prenup.

You're about to promise me to stay with me forever, but you are, at the same moment, telling me what will happen if you break said promise.
Marriage is a commitment, if you're not okay with the commitment you're taking I'm perfectly fine with the idea that we don't get married, but I'm not okay with you putting conditions and terms on the commitment and imply that I'm some sort of bitch who will fuck you over and take away 50% of everything you own if something doesn't work out.

If, as you said, you can't promise you'll love me forever (which in my opinion is logical, and a totally acceptable stance) then you shouldn't even marry me.
The idea that "I'll love you forever, but maybe I won't, so please sign here and here so if things fail I have an easy way out and I'm keeping my grandma's house" makes me feel disgusted.

>>17684292
at least you're willing to look at it. this is all hypothetical, i've been going through so much shit with the gf because of my mom and brother dying this year. If we hadn't been so rocky and back and forth i wouldn't consider it.

that being said, my thoughts of marriage with her are off currently because of this. I was just thinking for the future. She knows how much I got and she knows my mother left me the money specifically for the betterment of my own life and future.

Basically if I were to marry, I would just want my initial returned if we were ever to divorce. Ie: X amount down for a down payment, X is to be returned upon sale of property if a separation were to happen. the rest would be split evenly even if the contribution wasnt equal.

the money was left so we could always have a home, if we got divorced normally homes are split or given to the wife to raise children. I just want to know that if a restart was in order I wouldn't be started for -0, like my buddy already has due to his divorce. he got reamed for child support payments and she took everything despite the loving relationship and him paying all her previous debt off before marriage

>>17684243
All that's gone out the window by the time people are signing divorce papers.
So much shit-flinging and petty squabbling would have taken place by then, fuckem, might as well take them to the cleaners for every dime. Really, it's just pay-back for the horrible things he's said/done to me! It's just fair, and a legal right!
Now gib dat momma's insurance money!

>>17684168
>giving up the tangible
But it was never hers to 'give up'.
And WEW that double-standard.

>>17684307
As I said - everything my boyfriend own is because I paid for it, and I wouldn't ask for 1$ back because I'm happy he's an accomplished person and generally don't care about money all that much.
I really detest the idea of someone having to protect himself from me, when I should be the person he trusts more.
If he worries so much about "risk management" I'd rather never get married.

>>17684307
He has all the freedom he wants.
I'm okay with never marrying if he's so scared of divorcing.

>>17684309
what you're saying is to act on emotion and disregard the realities surrounding marriage. its a selfish expectation, especially so if you're accusing your partner to be planning a divorce when he and you clearly know that to be untrue.

>>17684309

>The idea of getting a prenup is contrasting to the idea of marriage itself

No it isn't, plenty of happily married people have a pre-nup in place, your opinions aren't facts

>You're about to promise me to stay with me forever, but you are, at the same moment, telling me what will happen if you break said promise.

If EITHER party break said promise, neither you nor your partner can guarantee that YOU won't bail out at some point and they want to have financial security if that were to happen.

>if you're not okay with the commitment you're taking I'm perfectly fine with the idea that we don't get married

What part of the commitment includes "risk half of what I've worked for my entire life' That's just a social construct we've developed to "fairly" deal with divorce, it has nothing to do with the promise and commitment of marriage.

>If, as you said, you can't promise you'll love me forever

It's not about them not being able to promise you, it's that you cannot promise THEM. Could be that divorce rates are above 50%, could be that people change as they grow, insurance is never a bad thing.

>The idea that "I'll love you forever, but maybe I won't, so please sign here and here so if things fail I have an easy way out and I'm keeping my grandma's house

Keeping what they had before you if things don't work out in the future has nothing to do with you, you aren't owed any of it and you shouldn't care that they aren't "risking" it all for you.

You would think their love and commitment would be enough without having to risk their half of their life's work as well just to be with you.

>>17684329
No, I'm accusing him of not being convinced that we'll stay together forever while he's promising me that we will. Marrying someone is a promise and a commitment. If you don't think it will work out, then just don't promise it.

If you're convinced we'll stay together forever, and you want to make it legal, then fine, marry me. But in this case, you don't need a prenup for a divorce that you don't think will happen.
If you're not convinced, then don't marry me. And in this case, too, you don't need a prenup.

Really, if you don't believe in marriage and you need a prenup then it is just a meaningless piece of paper and a lot of money wasted on a ceremony. I don't want that.

>>17684323

>He has all the freedom he wants.
I'm okay with never marrying if he's so scared of divorcing.

By that same token you take it to mean people with any kind of insurance are scared and inevitably believe the outcome will occur?

Your same logic can be said about car insurance, if you get it you must believe you will inevitably crash one day so may as well just not drive in the first place and avoid the risk altogether.

>>17684165
instead of getting a prenup just don't get married

>>17684165
Generally, it depends a lot on the delivery. If you mention it pretty early in the relationship (or even before it starts) and explain your reasons well, most people will be fine. Besides, marriage is basically a tax minimizing charade, so adding more paperwork to it doesn't sound like a big deal.

Now personally speaking ... I find the level of materialism and paranoia about the future icky and wouldn't even date a person who thinks along the lines.

>>17684258
> you will be together for life anyway
Now this is pretty unlikely, statistically speaking. Expecting a marriage not to last is perfectly realistic and understandable; expecting the person you marry trying to fuck you over in the future, not so much ... although it's a good way to ensure that the whole thing won't last too long.

Guy here (before some faggot starts to bitch about gold digging hoes)

>>17684316
>been rocky
>she's probably offered you support during these episodes
>she knows about the money
>you're shelving the possibility of marriage because of these developments
Even without additional context, this sounds a whole heap of potential pitfalls.
You're in a dicey situation, GL OP.
Sounds like a prenup could break it, which kinda makes it more foolish to go without one.

>>17684323

i just want to preface this by saying that I am not sexist in any way, shape or form. My opinions are based on what I consider to be objective fact and personal experience.

The reason you are so outraged is because you have nothing to lose in this situation. Men rarely if not ever go after women looking for recompense beyond their means.

If you and your future husband have kids and get divorced you will keep pretty much everything you have been working towards your whole life. Nothing is technically in jeopardy.

Unfortunately the courts are stacked in favour of women. This isn't me being sexist, this is an objective fact. You find this so insulting because there is absolutely no possible scenario where your boyfriend could "take you to the cleaners". Your ambition and possibilities in life are limited. Effectively, your pre-nup was signed the day you were conceived with two X chromosomes. The idea of "protecting yourself" is ridiculous because there is nothing to protect yourself from.

>>17684323
You should be the one worried about him, anon.

>>17684336

>you don't need a prenup for a divorce that you don't think will happen

You don't need car insurance for an accident you don't think will happen.

You don't need travel insurance for a trip you don't think will be ruined by accident or theft.

>>17684336
i think the problem here is that you are the one with a trust issue. you have an absolute expectation, which isn't rational nor logical, and unwilling you are to compromise. what you're expecting is extremely selfish and its simple insecurity.
so he tells you that he'll stay with you forever and sure you'll accept, but when he mentions prenup you assume he's planning for divorce? you're not making sense.

>>17684356
Car insurance is a pretty scam-y business, where you will get fucked either way if something happens more often than not, so a horrible example.

Travel insurance is an even bigger scam only old people fall for.

What's next, phone insurance?

>>17684350
no support, was just "there" she stands to inherit much more than me, if she wanted a prenup as well i wouldn't be opposed to it.

>>17684357
So why is he mentioning the prenup if he doesn't consider divorce and considers her trustworthy?

>>17684332
>It's not about them not being able to promise you, it's that you cannot promise THEM.
So you're telling me you don't trust me when I'm making the promise. He is clearly saying that the promise I'm making to him doesn't mean shit to him. Why should I promise then? What's the point?

>That's just a social construct we've developed to "fairly" deal with divorce, it has nothing to do with the promise and commitment of marriage.
Marriage is a social construct too. Everything about marriage is a social construct.

>Keeping what they had before you if things don't work out in the future has nothing to do with you, you aren't owed any of it and you shouldn't care that they aren't "risking" it all for you.
I honestly cannot see myself purposely ruining my boyfriend's life in case we get married and things go south. My boyfriend should know it.
If they don't think I'm worth the risk is fine, but I'm not accepting to get married with a prenup.

>You would think their love and commitment would be enough without having to risk their half of their life's work as well just to be with you.
I don't want you to risk it. But I don't see the point of a prenup if you truly believe in the commitment we're taking, or to take a commitment you don't really believe in.


>>17684337
When I buy a car I'm not promising to never have an accident.
When I'm marrying someone, I'm kind of promising to stay with them forever.

>>17684362
because you don't blindly act on emotion. there is literally no point in not getting prenup and it is merely a calculated addition of another life changing decision.

>>17684359
Good luck living without insurances.
Oh, i forgot to tell you you're legally obligated to have one in most countries of the world.

I also remember a nice good story about a guy, a son of my mother's acquaintance, who faked an insurance going to Thailand and then got in a car accident. His parents are now stuck in a debt to the level they have to sell their house, because the costs of surgery and intensive care were insane, and the insurance cost was about 15-16$ at the time.

>>17684359

Your logic applies to any kind of insurance, you're saying never cover yourself because what you think won't happen WILL NEVER HAPPEN. It's immature and illogical thinking, and even more so to be insecure enough to think your partner who is just walking into a marriage is already planning for divorce by wanting a pre-nup.

If divorces were a rarity I could understand your stance on the matter but with over 50% of marriages ending in divorce you have a coin flip to determine the outcome. The 50% that fail obviously went forward with absolute certainty nothing would ever break them apart, and look what happened.

Would it still bother you if pre-nups came with marriage? Or do you just think adding anything onto the rules of marriage as they are is a complete betrayal of the vows and commitment signified by your partner moving forward.

>>17684361
Hm, so are you both well-off?

>>17684351
I know that well, I'm not questioning that.
I am (obviously) against the way men are treated in court, and I clearly understand why a man would want a prenup.
I'm just saying that if you don't believe in the institution of marriage (and a big part of what marriage is revolves around it being a life-long commitment) I think you shouldn't get married in the first place. Which, in my opinion, is TOTALLY acceptable and I would never be mad at a man if he told me "I cannot marry you".
>>17684355
Kek. I know. Fucking golddiggers, right?

>>17684380
The 50% marriages thing is a bit of a myth.
The number of divorces has been declining stably and the number of divorces between people who got married in their late life is pretty low.
Around 75% of couples married in the 90s are still together.

>>17684395

Why can't someone want and believe in everything about marriage and have full faith and commitment for the future but still want to simply protect their assets in case the worst were to hypothetically happen.

Why does marriage have to include a financial leap of faith that only serves to benefit the other party. I could very easily be completely in love, 100% committed and sure of my relationship, wish to take it to the next level with marriage and still wish to protect myself if in 10-20 years things turn sour. To act like both aren't capable of occurring at the same time.

>>17684365
>when I buy a car I'm not promising to never have an accident
So then are accidents written into traffic-law?
Seems to me the point of getting certified in traffic-law is to avoid accidents for as long as possible, perhaps, in an ideal world, your whole lifetime.

Seems like learning how to drive & getting a license are akin to promising everyone else on the roads 'I'll obey all laws & thereby ensure safe travel for everyone..[forever]'. Literally, since you're showing the state (ie everyone) that you could potentially back up that claim by demonstrating your knowledge of the law & ability to operate a vehicle.
It's less explicit, less ver-batim, but legally the analogy holds.

Not that anon btw.

>>17684395
Gotta watch out, they're crafty.

>>17684399

Regardless of the absolute figures, the risk is still incredibly large, no one gets married thinking it's not for life and just look at how many of them end. Given these figures you don't think it's okay for successful people to want to protect some of their assets whilst still wishing to commit their life to another person via marriage?

>>17684395
how can you say you understand the reasoning for a prenup, yet throw away a marriage proposal from one that wants one?

>>17684404
Marriage isn't a deal you make now and then you confirm every 10 years. Marriage is a deal you make now and then it's valid till your deathbed.
When you sign a prenup you're saying that you're not 100% sure you'll stay together. Which is reasonable, I'm not questioning that. I am saying that it is against the very concept of marriage.
If you cannot promise me we will stay together forever, and cannot believe me when I say we will stay together forever, then I'm not wasting my time and my money on a ceremony that doesn't mean anything to you.

When I sign a car insurance is because I'm not 100% sure that I won't fuck up while driving and I don't trust myself blindly, and I don't trust other drivers blindly. It's the same concept.

>>17684165
Unfortunately prenups will be throw out in court. They are basically worthless and no matter what you do. The best you can get away with is not having to pay insane alimony for the rest of your life. Could probably get it down to 3 years if she gets the house.

And to all of the whores saying hes thinking about divorce, its absolute bullshit if you think a person should enter into a financially binding agreement that they dont like the terms of.

>>17684399

You can continue living in your fairyland where promises are for life, people never change and marriage never turns for the worse while the rest of us protect our life's work.

Best thing to do for everyone is to just have a giant wedding and all that and never sign the papers desu

>>17684370
>it is merely a calculated addition
Which shows that you consider your partner willing to screw you over in the future in your calculation. It's not impossible but doesn't send the best sign.

>>17684371
>you're legally obligated to have one in most countries of the world
Says quite a bit about the usefulness of it, if the government has to force you into it. Almost like a huge lobby plays a big part.

As for your story, it says more about the fucked medical costs in US of A than benefits of insurance (that artificially exist due artificially high medical costs)

>>17684380
>Your logic applies to any kind of insurance
Even ignoring the pointlessness of insurance ... you're putting your partner on the same trust level as a drunk driver, really?

>is already planning for divorce by wanting a pre-nup.
That's simply a fact. You can't have it both ways and praise how logical it is to consider all outcomes, while ignoring that wanting a prenup comes only due the consideration of the very worst outcome.

Also you're mixing up shit by pointing out the number of divorces. A prenup isn't made with the expectation of a divorce but expectation of a divorce, where one partner will try to fuck over the other. Completely different things and it's not exactly rational to marry a person if you consider that they might want to fuck your life.

>Would it still bother you if pre-nups came with marriage?
In that case it'd be just part of the whole deal, basically a bigger contract. The way it's now, it's sending mixed messages. First you sign to stay with your partner forever and ever then you also sign an additional piece of paper planning for a divorce in which your partner will try to ruin you.

>>17684431

Since when is the concept of marriage having 100% certainty in the future? It's having faith it will work out for the best, because you want it to, because you love each other, because it's what you both want for your lives. To guarantee a divorce is never going to happen is childish, you cannot guarantee anything, you can promise you don't want it to occur and have no intentions, but you cannot say it will never happen.

>>17684437
Doesnt matter, if you live together for 3 years you are legally considered married and you still are bound by divorce laws.

>>17684413
I don't trust my skills as a driver to the point I'm willing to promise I'm never going to make a mistake, and I'm not willing to trust other people about the same thing. Which is why I am getting an insurance.
When I'm getting married I'm promising I'm never going to leave my partner. If we're not trusting each other about this promise we need an insurance, if we do trust each other, we don't.
I'm not accepting to marry someone who doesn't trust me.

>>17684419
Sure. Everything is okay.
But I personally wouldn't accept a marriage proposal if it comes with a prenup because, to me, it goes against the very meaning of marriage. I'd rather spend the rest of my life without ever marrying.

>>17684427
I replied a thousand times.
Because marriage is forever, if you don't think it's forever and you need a prenup then don't marry me because the promise you'd be making on our wedding day is meaningless. If you think it's forever then don't ask me a prenup.

>>17684435
No dude - the promise of marriage IS for life. If you cannot make this promise, absolutely zero problems with it, but don't make it.

>>17684443
I guess that the point where you promise to love and take care of each other *till death do us part* makes marriage about staying together till you die.

>>17684446
I dont get people like you. If the marriage contract said that upon divorce you family was killed would you still sign it saying you wouldnt think about divorce when getting married.
The only people who argue that prenups are bad are women who feel entitled to half of their husbands belongings. Its not because you dont think about divorce. Its because the divorce is in your favor that you dont have to think about it.

>>17684382
by no means am i, which is why i want to keep my inheritance as it was my mothers dying wish to help me be financially secure. my gf is wealthy they're well off, but her grandfather is wealthy, and he is old and sick. they stand to inherit quite a bit.

i've been broke most of my life. we had money then my father died. had enough to get by with what was left. i know what its like to not have any kind of savings and go paycheck to paycheck. i want the financial security of knowing i'll always have a home

>>17684442

Lol what is so wrong with considering the worst outcome? Why is it so immoral to prepare for the worst.

You're also confusing what a pre-nup means, it's not expecting the person you're with to screw you over, it's that in the event of a divorce your assets will be split 50/50, they are entitled to that, and so are you. No one walks out of a divorce without claiming their half.

You seem to think a pre-nup is protecting against a malicious partner trying to take you for everything you own.

>>17684461
also if i stayed with my gf i'd bring up the topic. if i met a new girl i would bring up the importance of this money from the beginning letting her know what my intentions for it are. if she can't be on board with it then she wouldn't be right for me anyway.

>>17684431
>We're getting married but we probably won't last for more than 10 years

Said by no couple getting married ever. Everyone always believes their marriage will last forever. Guess what, completely unpredictable things happen.

>>17684442
As I said, the whole situation took place in Thailand, and they paid a hell of a lot for intensive care and surgeries _there_ since there was no way of transporting him back home in his condition.

Governments force you to have travel insurances just in cases like this one. It's really hard to pay medical expenses abroad. Well, if you don't like it - don't travel, simple and easy like that.

>>17684446
>my marriage is forever!

Have fun looking back in 10 or 20 years at this statement.

>>17684457
If I got half of my boyfriend's belongings, I would get half of his student loans. Not really a huge deal, for me. He has much more to gain than I do.

I wouldn't sign a contract I'm not okay with. I wouldn't do something if I considered the risks I'm taking to not be worth it.
You're not legally obligated to get married. You can stay in a relationship forever without ever agreeing to a marriage. It's pointless to get married but, at the same time, plan a way out.

>>17684457
>>17684450

Exactly this, money isn't important to you like you said but it very much is for a lot of people, if something more important to you was at stake like the lives of your family you wouldn't hesitate to make your partner sign a pre-nup to protect them in the event of things not working out.

>>17684480

Lol "plan a way out" how are you so deluded to believe that's what it means. You sound like the most insecure person, and I feel sorry for your boyfriend.

>>17684442
As I said, the whole situation took place in Thailand, and they paid a hell of a lot for intensive care and surgeries _there_ since there was no way of transporting him back home in his condition.

Governments force you to have travel insurances just in cases like this one. It's really hard to pay medical expenses abroad. Well, if you don't like it - don't travel, simple and easy like that. Same applies to car insurance: almost all states (and countries abroad) have laws concerning mandatory insurances to ensure the victims will be compensated, and you won't be left homeless at the same time

>>17684480
>You can stay in a relationship forever without ever agreeing to a marriage.
You are considered married after living together after a certain time span.

>>17684471
I completely get it. But you don't make promises you don't know if you're able to keep. If you don't think you're able to stay together "from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part" you don't fucking promise it.
I'm not signing a piece of paper that says that I basically cannot trust your word and you cannot trust mine.
Not because it is unreasonable to think we won't stay together, but because it's stupid to promise something when you don't know if you can keep your word. It's a meaningless promise.

>>17684478
I haven't said that in any point.
I am not married, I don't plan to get married any soon.

>>17684496
Not where I live.

>>17684465
>Lol what is so wrong with considering the worst outcome?
Well for one ... stop pretending that it's not the whole reason and try to sweet talk your reasoning with bullshit arguments.

Other than that, not much. It's not really immoral, just pretty aromantic ... which is perfectly fine if you're both fine with it but don't be surprised if some people are put off by the idea.

>No one walks out of a divorce without claiming their half.
No decent partner would take half of your shit if they didn't earn it. If they consider it, they are a pretty shitty entitled person; and by wanting a prenup you consider that they might be/turn into a shitty entitled person. Surprisingly, some people don't want to marry someone who considers the possibility. You don't have to marry them. They don't have to marry you. All good.

>>17684476
>_there_
Ah, my bad, overlooked that part. And sure, in the scenario it makes sense ... although it's still a pretty damn shitty argument to equal a random accident with ones marriage.

As for car insurance, now that shit focuses on the other side (and the companies) YOU personally rarely get any positives, unless you're a complete fuckup driver.

>>17684499
If you live in the western world then you are not exempt. After 3 years you are considered married.

>>17684516
>If you live in the western world then you are not exempt. After 3 years you are considered married.
I am 100% sure that that's not the case where I live.
We don't have any financial obligation to each other, he's not obligated to support me if I'm not working and in case we split up we don't owe each other anything. He's not inheriting anything if I die.
He has financial obligations in case we have kids, but no obligation to me.

The only rights he has, as my partner, is to look after me and know about my health if I'm in hospital.

>>17684527
If you live in the western world you are wrong. I know its hard to swallow. But you dont have to have a marriage license to be considered married. There are cases where alimony and splitting of assests were still mandated by court even though the couple wasnt officially considered married.

>>17684528
No, you're simply incorrect.
I live in Europe and I'm 100% sure that my partner has no right on anything I own. I know my country legislation better than you do.
Each case of a women who asked for alimony after living together was rejected.

>>17684165
Easy answer. If she thinks splitting is possible to likely then yeah she'll make a prenup a big deal. If she has real faith in you and her... She won't.

>>17684539
>Each case of a women who asked for alimony after living together was rejected.
This is funny because its wrong.

>>17684565
Holy shit. Where I live, it is like this. No case was ever accepted, they were ALL rejected.
It's easier to get money from your partner if you've been married for 1 day than if you lived with them for 50 years.
If you don't believe me, cool.

>>17684575
It depends on the place u live in.

>>17684309
Are you a child in an adult's body?

>>17684554
Don't you get a bit claustrophobic from living in such a small world?

I'd not even consider marriage with someone who's not down with a pre-nup. It's only practical.

>>17684243
There are thousands of poor saps who got hollowed out by harpies saying the exact same thing you're saying. They probably even meant what they said at the time, but ignoring stats and assuming you'll be one of the lucky few is blind romanticism.

I would like to think that I would not be offended, as long as the terms are reasonable, because then it's a practical arrangement.

At the same time, I would not want to marry someone that I wasn't completely comfortable going no-prenup with, if for some reason that was necessary.