You know, I used to be against prenups and what they allude to - the possibility of an end to a marriage both people are supposed to be in for the long haul. However, with a divorce rate hovering somewhere around 2000 percent, I don't see why anybody (men or women) would be staunchly opposed to them.
Part of the stigma attached is that the assumption is that its in place to protect the man's assets when the truth is, it also protects the women involved too.
Jessica Simpson, I'm looking at you. When she and Nick Lachey got married, he was bringing in the bacon. When they divorced, she mas making like $30 million a year and he was at home watching her on TV. They had no prenup. She lost duckets.
A prenup is nothing more than a contract and contracts protect both parties from disproportionate loss in the event of a breach, termination or at the conclusion of said event. Cell phone companies have contracts, caterers have contracts, jobs have them. In some ways, marriage is just like those other things: it's a union you enter with hopes of things going as well as possibility where you hopefully never have to enforce the conditions in the contract.
But sh*t happens. We all know this. And if you have a lot of assets to protect in general, you just might want to make sure that you don't lose $167 million in a divorce settlement.
Michael Jordan, I'm looking at you.
So I think it's a personal thing between a couple. I'd probably not feel inclined to need one, then again the IRS owns most of my money right now and they're really not giving it back so, whatever. As long as both sides can mutually agree then yea all day. But it's a sticky situation no matter how it's broached. Nobody likes feeling like you want to keep things from them even if they stand to gain some sort of protection from it.
It's kind of like the time a white woman called me an affirmative action poster child (I'm dead serious) not realizing that affirmative action ALSO impacts her.
I love education.
It was written.
What's interesting as that people not having contracts when going into marraige is a new thing. Throughout most of history, unless you were dirt peasent poor, there was some kind of contract before marraige. In Islam, it's a requirement to have some sort of contract and the woman gets to ask for something, like a home and her own income out of her husbands pay check. She HAS to ask for something. If you want to be married in Islam, there must be some kind of contract. Interesting.
I say pre nup all the way. I don't have anything but I will damn well protect what isn't mind at all!
Not all muslims have contracts, it is not a requirement. My native country has a muslim population of 90% and marriage contracts are virtually unheard of. Just sayin...
Judaism has this too- Jewish law sets specific rights and obligations for each spouse, and they sign the marriage contract at the wedding. Breaking any of the rules is grounds for divorce. It might not be the most romantic thing in the world, but like Panama said, not every marriage lasts forever.
Yes, because contrary to the much misunderstood concept of women in Islam, Islam does respect women and regards them most highly. I won't go into details about how Islam respects women, for fear it might mistaken as a lecture, but in terms of marriage, yes, you are correct.
It wasn't necessarily called 'prenup', and until now it is not necessarily thought as 'prenup' in terms of like the Americans see it. Most of the agreement doesn't contain monetary issues such as money, wealth, financial arrangements/settlements, and things alike, because the Islamic rules about monetary issues in marriage are pretty much laid out crystal-clear. Mostly it's about the bride's condition on marrying the groom, such as she won't tolerate polygamy, for example.
Completely out of topic, just a matter of interest, Sugababe, what's your home country?
What a lovely day for a 818371! SCK was here
What a lovely day for a 2992926! SCK was here