Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Romance

In my recent trip to London, an alarming number of people(mostly men) spoke of their distrust of women and that the risk of losing hard earned assets and potential divorce costs are putting more men off marriage.

So, are Pre-nuptials the way forward?

And If your partner does not agree to one, are they after your money?

All replies welcome.

I would definately not agree signing a pre-nup... It's like u sign a business agreement rather than marrying for the reason that u love each other.. It kinda means u already thinking about the divorce when ur not even married yet. I think it defies the purpose of marriage.

I do understand though, since the divorce rates are very high, that most lawyers would advice to do so if one party is far richer than the other. It just takes the romance away...I'm too romantic for that and so is my 'soon to be' husband.. He's far richer than me, but he would never make me sign a pre-nup..

Pre-nuptials = a disturbing degree of mistrust. Why would a man get married to a woman that is not completly trustworthy?

Aaah the pre-nup. I really think it depends. In the US where divorce is at a 50% rate..and second marriages are also at at 40% rate for divorce..I guess this is something that couples may have to consider. Hollywood uses them obviously, due to their ridiculous dovirce rates and not wanting to lose their fortunes. I personally would never have one...but it might be something other couples might look into.

While we are on the topic I found this interesting atricle concerning women and prenups in Islam:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/prenuptial.htm

Thank you for the replies ladies.

i, personally, would marry only on a Pre-nuptial agreement to safeguard what are recognised as Family assets - meaning my direct family.

I think that as long as that is made clear and she can do hers, anything we do after the marriage are the portions which should be shared, should it reach that stage.

I dont believe this to be a pessimistic move, but more a precautionary- as pointed out Divorce rates are exeedingly high. Lets face it, for example what if it does end up in Divorce...why should my wife be entitled to something my father worked all his life for, for me before i married her?

I think is a sensitive subject and would like to know peoples perspectives.

noni wrote:Aaah the pre-nup. I really think it depends. In the US where divorce is at a 50% rate..and second marriages are also at at 40% rate for divorce..I guess this is something that couples may have to consider. Hollywood uses them obviously, due to their ridiculous dovirce rates and not wanting to lose their fortunes. I personally would never have one...but it might be something other couples might look into.

While we are on the topic I found this interesting atricle concerning women and prenups in Islam:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/prenuptial.htm

In my homecountry the divorse rate is around 90% but pre-nuptials are not in use.
There are both pluses and minuses in this question.I totally agree with girls who said that it is breaking romance in the relationship. At the same time guys' craving to protect their property is also understood.

blah blah blah..

Comparing a pre-nup (legal document) to a blank piece of paper is an argument for what?

The laws relating to the dissolution of a marriage differs from country to country, even from state to state within one country, and as it stands they tend to favour one gender more than the other. Prescribing equality via pre-nup has nothing to do with and doesn't necessarily mean there is a lack of love or trust.

Crudely put it is another form of insurance. You are not betting on the fact that there will be a loss nor are you trying to minimize a loss in the event of misfortune, rather you are setting a limit in the event of unfavorable future occurrences - which theoretically should result in equality.

Love is blind and should hold no bounds but heartache can be a stronger catalyst for one to seek 'just' rewards.

Uncle XRW has explained to me the error in my thinking.

I take it all back heheh

And yup, i've never been to a divorce hearing. if I did, I guess I would have known Pre-nup from a tomato

nosoup4u wrote:Vice versa, if the pre-nup is not signed, the man could ruin the woman as she wouldn't get a penny.

Have you been to a divorce hearing? Without a pre-nup it is the woman who can ruin a man's life.

AnnaSvensson wrote:In my homecountry the divorse rate is around 90% but pre-nuptials are not in use.
There are both pluses and minuses in this question.I totally agree with girls who said that it is breaking romance in the relationship. At the same time guys' craving to protect their property is also understood.

Sann, Tack.

XRW-147 wrote:Love is blind and should hold no bounds but heartache can be a stronger catalyst for one to seek 'just' rewards.

Thanks XRW, exactly my point.

My friends have regretted not doing it. One of them lost his fathers house to his ex.... what right did she have over his Fathers house? the law just favoured her and she chose it over their house. Painfull it was for him.

It is only a safeguard. Divorce makes people do crazy things. Each tries to geet themselves the best deal.
If she has much less than you, than you stand to lose the most. By "Pre Nupping" you safeguard the years of hardwork pre marriage and save yourself a lot more pain afterwards. All achieved durng the time together should be the shared spoil.

If you partner cannot understand that - surely you have to question it. As it would seem she is more interested on your things than the marriage itself.

anyone staunchly disagree?

rvp_legend wrote:

AnnaSvensson wrote:In my homecountry the divorse rate is around 90% but pre-nuptials are not in use.
There are both pluses and minuses in this question.I totally agree with girls who said that it is breaking romance in the relationship. At the same time guys' craving to protect their property is also understood.

Sann, Tack.

Var sa god!
Hoppas du mar bra idag

Well with 1 in 3 marriages ending in divorce these days, maybe the pre-nup is not such a bad idea. Don't forget they're not just aimed at women either, guys are capable of marrying for money then trying to take ore than their fair share in a divorce.

XRW-147 wrote:

nosoup4u wrote:Vice versa, if the pre-nup is not signed, the man could ruin the woman as she wouldn't get a penny.

Have you been to a divorce hearing? Without a pre-nup it is the woman who can ruin a man's life.

Amen to that!

rvp_legend wrote:
By "Pre Nupping" you safeguard the years of hardwork pre marriage and save yourself a lot more pain afterwards.

I absolutely agree.

If you're really not after your partner's money/properties, what's wrong with signing a Pre-nup agreement?!

It's not that you dont trust the person whom you chose to marry, you're just making a safety precaution ('just in case').

yorky500 wrote:

XRW-147 wrote:

nosoup4u wrote:Vice versa, if the pre-nup is not signed, the man could ruin the woman as she wouldn't get a penny.

Have you been to a divorce hearing? Without a pre-nup it is the woman who can ruin a man's life.

Amen to that!

Amen?!?!?!
Well, when my aunt divorced, her husband took everything and left her with two children without any financial support.
I don't think that it is woman who ruins man's life; in most cases it is quite the contrary.

AnnaSvensson wrote:Amen?!?!?!
Well, when my aunt divorced, her husband took everything and left her with two children without any financial support.
I don't think that it is woman who ruins man's life; in most cases it is quite the contrary.

Anna, that is why a pre-nup exists. Its suppose to protect the rights of both parties - not only the man's.

AnnaSvensson wrote:

yorky500 wrote:

XRW-147 wrote:

nosoup4u wrote:Vice versa, if the pre-nup is not signed, the man could ruin the woman as she wouldn't get a penny.

Have you been to a divorce hearing? Without a pre-nup it is the woman who can ruin a man's life.

Amen to that!

Amen?!?!?!
Well, when my aunt divorced, her husband took everything and left her with two children without any financial support.
I don't think that it is woman who ruins man's life; in most cases it is quite the contrary.

She did not have a very good lawyer then, unless there is something you are not telling us, with regard to your example.

My comment is from my own experience.

What does history tell us about pre-nup?

What does history tell us about anything?

XRW-147 wrote:What does history tell us about anything?

Pre-nups where not in a common use 50 years ago. I am wondering if they were so popular in the Middle Ages.

She did not have a very good lawyer then, unless there is something you are not telling us, with regard to your example.

My comment is from my own experience.[/quote]



Both her and her children wanted to get rid of this person, that is why they prefered to not go to the court, otherwise it might have prolonged for a long time.
What I was telling was that a man did not want to leave anything even to his children.

I agree that signing a pre-nup is a wise thing to do, but personally I would not like to do it.

AnnaSvensson wrote:Both her and her children wanted to get rid of this person, that is why they prefered to not go to the court, otherwise it might have prolonged for a long time.
What I was telling was that a man did not want to leave anything even to his children.

I agree that signing a pre-nup is a wise thing to do, but personally I would not like to do it.

Thats the thing, with a pre-nup she could have actually come out with what was pre-decided to be fair and equal at the time of marriage. If she had gone to court this guy would have been taken to the cleaners.

XRW-147 wrote:

AnnaSvensson wrote:Both her and her children wanted to get rid of this person, that is why they prefered to not go to the court, otherwise it might have prolonged for a long time.
What I was telling was that a man did not want to leave anything even to his children.

I agree that signing a pre-nup is a wise thing to do, but personally I would not like to do it.

Thats the thing, with a pre-nup she could have actually come out with what was pre-decided to be fair and equal at the time of marriage. If she had gone to court this guy would have been taken to the cleaners.

Agreed, the Court will always find in favour of the women, especially so if there are children involved.

Well the pre-nup can actually state what each party would get in the event of a separation. So things could still be divided equally or the higher earning party could agree to make sure the other party is financially stable in the event of a seperation. It's not a case of someone being left with nothing, or the other party beign taken to the cleaners. Pre-nups protect what you go into the marriage with, but make sure both parties are taken care of in the event of a seperation.

as usual two sides of a coin....well as Im not really a daughter of a king, I would say no, pre nup is not necessary, it will ruin romance and blah blah blah ! hahhaa but if Im one big time mafia member or something like that then yes it is advisable,precaution is better than cure.

yorky500 wrote:

XRW-147 wrote:

AnnaSvensson wrote:Both her and her children wanted to get rid of this person, that is why they prefered to not go to the court, otherwise it might have prolonged for a long time.
What I was telling was that a man did not want to leave anything even to his children.

I agree that signing a pre-nup is a wise thing to do, but personally I would not like to do it.

Thats the thing, with a pre-nup she could have actually come out with what was pre-decided to be fair and equal at the time of marriage. If she had gone to court this guy would have been taken to the cleaners.

Agreed, the Court will always find in favour of the women, especially so if there are children involved.

In most cases yes. Simply because it is a woman who takes greater care about a child.

Some time ago I read some stats that said that many women and their children are left at the poverty line after a divorce. The men were the higher earners and the women took time off to have kids, meaning they had no independent income. Even starting work again the salaries are often lower and the women cannot catch up. The men made off in great shape because they could afford the lawyer fees to fight it out for longer.

If I was a wealthy woman I would have protected my finances when entering into marriage. For most couples who contribute equally or almost equally to the domestic finances, pre-nuptual agreements don't seem necessary.

kanelli wrote:Some time ago I read some stats that said that many women and their children are left at the poverty line after a divorce. The men were the higher earners and the women took time off to have kids, meaning they had no independent income. Even starting work again the salaries are often lower and the women cannot catch up. The men made off in great shape because they could afford the lawyer fees to fight it out for longer.

A pre-nup could protect against this very thing. It's not just to the male's advantage.