I am engaged to a much younger woman. I have been married more than once and got hit pretty hard each time financially. I insist on an agreement she will sign first that if something goes wrong she will not take what I bring into the marriage, including a house I almost lost once, which my grandfather purchased when I was only 4 months old. She feels it is like I am planning for divorce. From my perspective, I am not even thinking about divorce at all. We are not even married yet, and I certainly don't want another one of those. I used to feel like she does but realistically, people don't marry with the notion they are going to be bitter enemies in a few years and try and destroy their current mate. It happens though. what is the right approach to this? Is a prenuptual wrong?<br>I have recieved one response to this from Val. Not a very complimentary response either. If you have ever lost everything to someone who said they loved you and would never do anything like take everything you own, you would understand. By the way, I am not, nor ever have been abusive. If a person is honest and definitely would not take things that were not theirs originally, then they should have no problem signing a piece of paper as a promise saying they won't do it. The marriage vows are a promise in writing also. should we condemn that because it is in writing? Look at it as evidence of lack of love? Get a grip Val. Of course she is more important to me than my house. My will has her as sole beneficiary of everything I own. I am happy to give it to her. I just don't want her to take it because she has decided at some point she has changed her mind about me. Me planning for divorce? It is not even in my thoughts! As an unrelated and unemotional example: If I give an estimate to do work in someones house and they accept, and I require a deposit before I start work, should they refuse on the grounds that I do not trust them? There refusal would indicate to me that perhaps they do not trust me? Who trusts who?<p>[This message has been edited by facelift (edited 01-25-99).]

Wow, Sticky situation.<p>She should love you enough to marry you without money or property being a factor.<p>You should love her enough to trust her with anything you own, or will ever own.<p>I would hope you could see your marriage as something that transcends mere property. (Yes, I know the house has "sentimental" value, but it IS just a house, it may burn down tomorrow, and you can't take it with you.)<p>Is it possible to put the house into a trust or some other financial "vehicle" so that you won't actually "own" it. I know nothing about such things, but I'm sure it can be done. <p>If you're really in love with her, and it came to divorce, you should be in more pain from the loss of your mate than from the loss of property. <p>You could always sell the house now, and get it over with.<p>Val<p>PS. I added this later. Since I've already stuck my big nose in, I'll disagree with you outright. You ARE planning for a divorce. You're giving yourself a "golden parachute" if things don't work out. With a pre-nup, you'll have less incentive to make the marriage work. You're showing her that your house is more important to you than she is. <p>She shouldn't marry you if you feel this way. <p>She could be the greatest wife in the world and you could be a royal a@@*&le. You could make all the selfish demands you wanted, abuse her mentally and even physically, and finally, divorce her with impunity.<p>Any self-respecting woman, when confronted with a pre-nup, should say: "Sorry you feel that way, I thought you loved me. Bye."<p>[This message has been edited by V (edited 01-22-99).]

First time I have used this system Val. I think you are mistaken in your view. If for example, and this is an unrelated, non emotional example, but still deals with trust. If I estimate a job to do in someones home, which estimate is accepted, and I then require a deposit as a show of good faith, does it mean I do not trust the person? If they refuse the deposit, my thought would be that they have no intention of paying me after the work is done. In turn, they may actually not trust me. I really have no desire, intention, or expectation of ever being divorced from her. It would take something truly awful and repeated for that to happen. However the way this world is, a man can be abused by his wife. Divorce ensues and he not only loses her, but everything he worked for materially. she gets it all. Even things he had before they met. Is that fair, loving and right? Who enters marriage expecting to divorce? I don't think anyone would do that. But the world is a messed up place. If a prospective mate is adamant in their love for another, that they would never ever take what they had not built up together, then they should have no problem signing a piece of paper which essentially is just a promise she would never do such a thing. Even the wedding ceremony and licence and vows are a promise. Do we do that because we don't trust the other and don't love them? I think not. So please don't go getting so self righteous on me when you have not been there. I have never been verbally or physically abusive to a woman in my life. thank you very much.

incidentally Val, did I tell you I have a will, and Rachel is sole beneficiary of all that I own? We are not even married yet, but I want her to have all I have. I just don't think it right a person could change sometime down the road and 'take' whatever they want. It is futile and foolish to say it would never happen to me or I would never do that. Facts prove otherwise. People who say they would never do things often do them. Incidentally, it would be heart breaking to lose her in any way. If she died before me, I would surely follow soon after. I can tell you from experience that divorce crushes an individual. It is very personal. It is not made easier to bare if one of those individuals also loses most of his money and his home which he had before they even met. Then, not only are his dreams crushed, but he has lost everything. Your reply seems to suggest that it is every womans right to have all her that her husband has if they divorce, regardless of who initiates the divorce and why. Almost like the woman is far superior and the guy should be thankful that she condescended to spend part of her life with him at all. I know a woman who is Reeve of a small town in northern Ontario. She has brain cancer. Her husband was a controller. They both had their own homes before they met. After the marriage, he rented his house out and lived in hers. They divorced. He got to keep his house. He took all of his money and some of hers(she had more in the beginning than he did). Now, he has come back to claim half her house since it was the marital home. He also gets to keep his house. he gets half of the contents as well. See what I mean. Should she now be crushed that she lost such a man? Is it wrong for her to feel anger that he is taking everything from her? If he had promised from the start that he loved her forever and would never do such a thing, would it still have been wrong for her to say "if you love me then promise in writing". I can tell you, if she had a written promise, she would not now be facing life, not only without a husband, with brain cancer, but also loss of most of her resources.

facelift:<p>I'm going to agree with Val in that I would not ask you fiancee to do this.<p>You're not "hiring" her to be your wife. You are marrying her.<p>You asked for honest advice, but it appears that you don't want to listen to it. You just want validation to have your fiancee sign a prenuptual agreeement.<p>Use the Policy of Joint Agreement. If you and your fiancee can not agree to this prenup, then you shouldn't pursue it. Period.<p>If the house is so precious to you (and I DO understand how it would be), perhaps you shouldn't marry.<p>There's no doubt that divorce is hell on people, and that there are plenty of marriages that are messed up. On this website there are a wonderful set of "Rules" for successful marriages. Apply the Rules of Protection, Care, Honesty, and Time to your marriage, and you and Rachel will 'divorce-proof' your marriage.<p>I suggest you start by 'complete honesty' with her about this situation, and then try to negotiate something using the POJA. No lovebusters. See what happens, and try to come up with a win-win senario.<p>If you can't settle on this, then I think your prospects for a successful marriage are poor, and I'd rethink the wedding plans.

Facelift,<p> Just a couple of clarifications,<p>First, sorry if I came across as "self rightous", that was not my intention. As men, we can never fully know how a woman "feels", but I think if I were a woman, and a man approached me with a pre-nup, I'd tell him where to insert it.<p>Secondly, as for having "been there", I disagree. I'm marrried, and have been for over 15 years, how much more "there" can I be. Oh, you mean I don't have a possesion that I value more than my wife, OK, you got me there. <p>I agree that the world IS a messed-up place. I don't think that marriage should be a license for a woman (or man) to acquire half of their mate's possesions. <p>While you make a noble effort with the "contractor" story, it isn't apples to apples. Why a contractor takes a deposit is up to him, and dictated by his policies and financial ability to finance the job himself or ask the customer to finance it. I tend to deal with companies that take no money until the job is complete and I am happy with it. (No, they do exist, I didn't make it up.) I don't think trust has a lot to do with it. If a deposit ensured that the job would be done and that the contractor would be paid, why sign a contract? Isn't the contractor's word good enough? The customer's word?<p>Whe you marry someone, you're entering a completely different type of agreement. According to the state, it's a legal one, but that's only because they feel they have to regulate it somehow. You're trusting your mate with your life, your health, your children, and yes, your house.<p>Finally, I never said YOU were abusive to a woman, or would be. I was just pointing out an example that is all too common in this "messed-up" world you mentioned. <p>Emotionally, that "Piece of paper" tells her that the house IS more important than she is. If that's the message you wanna send, go for it. Your WORDS may say that she's important to you, but your ACTIONS say that your house is more important.<p>You mention that you been married "a few times before". And the lesson you've learned is to protect yourself financially, is that all? I suppose the former wives were all "bad people" and you were the one taken advantage of. Every time? You did everything you could to hold the mariage together? So now you want to have even LESS incentive to keep this one together?<p>You're still confused as to why she should be hesitant to sign the pre-nup?<p><br>Val<p><br>PS I just read your edited post that you addressed my initial response. You said I wasn't very "complimentary", sorry, I thought you were looking for opinions, not compliments!<br>[This message has been edited by V (edited 01-26-99).]<p>[This message has been edited by V (edited 01-26-99).]

Oh, I really do think you misunderstand me, my motives toward my fiancee. Actually, she said she would be willing to sign it. After she said that, it was not important to me anymore. My house is not more important to me than she is. How could you make that sort of comment more than once when I already said my will has her as sole beneficiary of all I own. We are not even together yet, but if I died tonight, it would all be hers. She deserves to have it. I love her. And I don't think we have any trouble lifting each other up or trusting each other. In fact, I told her if it bothered her that it was only my name on the deed to the house, so that she would not feel it was her home too, we could sell it and get one jointly. She said no need. I think some of your comments indicate at least to me that trust and committment and honesty are one sided. If the tables were turned and She was bringing something into the marriage which was hers and not mine (though she would let me benefit from it)and asked me to promise I would never try and take it away from her, or sign a promise to that effect, I would have no problem signing it since in my heart I know I WOULD NOT EVER TAKE IT FROM HER so why would I be afraid or offended to make the provable committment? Could it be we take things far too seriously sometimes? If we took time to understand the motive behind something like this, it could be seen that no offense is needed. Anyway, we are both fine, and it is not even a topic of discussion anymore. She asked if I would sign a piece of paper promising never to divorce except on certain grounds and after real effort to overcome whatever problem we were facing. I said I would have no problem at all signing something like that. And I did not get offended when she asked. I think my willingness, eagerness to sign really assured her I love her and am totally committed.

Something I forgot to say. Your comment that we can't fully know what a woman feels. I chuckled over that one. I suppose it is true. But the effort to try is worth it, and if we succeed even 75 % to understand, which in a lot of cases just means putting oneself in the others shoes, we can go along way. I am sure they face the same dilemma in trying to understand men. As Rachel says, the differences a good. We have much in common also. As long as a person does not allow themself to get so offended but is willing to sit down and talk with an equally eager to please partner, the world shall be well. I wonder how many times a comment has been made and offense taken over it, only to find out later that the comment was misunderstood and did not reflect the thoughts and feelings of the one who said it.

Ahhhh, another happy ending, courtesy of the POJA.<p>Facelift, I think that the idea of "committing" to working out any maritial issues before running to divorce is great. I would suggest that you order a copy of "The Four Gifts of Love" from this website: it's a great book for newlyweds and engaged couples. It'd be a great gift for Rachel (and you too).