Why would women shy away from a prenup?

A prenup is making a prima facie assumption that the couple is going to divorce – even before they have ever married.

What a depressing attitude.

If the women are truly in it for love and the long haul,then I find the fact they have a problem with a prenup disturbing.
My brother in laws wife had zero problem with a prenup,because she wanted him not his stuff and to this day I respect the hell out of her for that.

They may take the view that a prenup demonstrates a lack of faith in the relationship, a lack of trust in them and/or an assumption that the marriage will fail.

Does having a life insurance policy mean you expect to die soon? No.
Does having car insurance mean you expect an accident? No.
Does a health exam mean you expect to be sick? No.
Does having a generator and 500 gallons of heating oil mean you will have a long power failure? No.
Does having a will mean you will die tomorrow? No
Does a computer hard drive backup mean you expect a computer crash? No.
Like a prenup, all those things are protection and planning for just-in-case situations.
Does a prenup mean you expect to get divorced? No.

If I had to write a prenup I would put a time limit on it. Say after 5 or 10 years of marriage the prenup is null and void and all property is owned common. If things are not going well they can split before then – no harm, no foul.

@LuckyGuy

Poor comparisons. Those things are all decisions based on rationality, not emotion. Marriage, on the other hand, is, by it’s very nature, an act of emotion, not rationality.

Wait a minute.
Good approaches from answers above! What if they were combined together… Let’s see. Hhmmm. Ok.
When two people decide that they can tolerate one another’s everything – from morning breath to knowing what favorite foods to pick up, socks size, to how they act when they don’t feel good…it’s serious. Give BOTH sides a stake in the positives of having the prenup.
Yes, it really pays to have insurance, or the knowledge of protection against ANYTHING happening. Marital fidelity insurance? Perhaps. But it doesn’t have to mean the relationship “may be doomed” if this comes up. Yet, superstition and romantic beliefs from hearing about living “happily ever after” in an incredible number of stories, movies, et al, still predominates some societies today. Who knows why? Don’t they watch Divorce Court? Or see murder mysteries over a couple’s determination by each to be the sole survivor who will end up with all the $ -and the dog, but minus their spouce to have to split it all with upon divorce?
What- no TV? Books? Movies? Puppets?
People down through time, have been paired by others: their families, their religion, traditions, combined family fortunes for power, etc.etc etc. “Love” as the ONLY reason to stay together – forever- seems as incredible and/or silly to other societies as their customs sometimes do to ours. Around the world marriages are promises, gifts, signed contracts and some places even a negotiated number of domesticated animals are discussed, mostly to secure a positive start for the couple’s lives together.
Our customs of giving everything to a person based soley upon the thought of everlasting LOVE? Seriously? I love salt and sugar more than I love some of my relatives, but I’m not going to send the growers or manufacturers my ‘Book of the Month Club’ selection!
Humans at ten years old to twenty years, twenty to forty years and so on, we change. Not in all manners, but in enough to change many outlooks on everyday issues. (Good thing! Ten year olds can be kinda grouchy sometimes) Experiences, life’s sucker punches, self doubts, cheating at checkers, a new co-worker, leaving the seat up…need I go on?
Wow.
All based upon ’ I Love You, Baby! Lets get married! ’
Uhm. Wait. What?
A prenupt, as stated by others above, should be as important to women as it apparently already is to their beloved. Great idea LuckyGuy! Put a time limit on the prenupt. It doesn’t mean ‘until death..’ , just for a period of time. Get to that point, renew or regroup. Rewrite, expand, start over, or pull an: As If!
This doesn’t mean make a statement of your love. It is saying this is the marriage document that covers our marriage at a point from where we both love each other. As Darth_Algar states- this ride is based upon emotion. If things change dramatically or our marriage has discentigrated to a point of unhappiness before (date), then our assests will revert to as they were premaritally, upon signing date.
Examples from other’s : before time agreed to review-
A- if a split should occur after the birth of children/should there be no offspring, then….
B- if a split occurs due to infidelity or mental/physical abuse, then…..(compensation)
Put in what should be cosidered as fair compensation should one or the other does not fullfill their portion of this agreement. ( an arm and two legs )
C- if at the date of re-examination listed, this document shall be extended until….
D- if it is decided that we, as a couple do not wish to continue our union, then….

Hint- if your prenupt spouce wants to bring along their personal assistant as a translator, or if most of the furniture is gone from the abode the same day as renewal….ah…uhmmmm…it might be a game-changer.
At the least- a prenupt expiration date means that there will be will be a relationship discussion. That is a good thing.
Perhaps with some written responsibilities stated, a person might think a little longer before they ‘spread their energy to others’. Perhaps loving another’s lifestyle more than they do the person, might be less enchanting if something may be lost. Like, say, money.
Put in a clause of ’ must attend marriage councilling ’ if there is one thinking that a prenupt is saying “I love you but I don’t trust you” or “I love you – why would we start out saying that what will happen if we don’t make it? ‘Cuz, gosh sweetie, I’ll love you forever! ”
I would have more trust in having a commitment in writing to fall back upon.
You wouldn’t take a job without a contract, and let’s face it, you may spend more time there than at home. Perhaps if there was such a ‘contractual prenupt ’, the responsibility to take the marriage more seriously and actually having to work on it, might be the best thing for the marriage. Because, as it has been said…a relationship is a lot of work, kids!

We no longer go a-courtin’ in the parlor with an escort present for you both to be ‘pure’ and ready to love one another until death do you part. At least that I know of….

Ohhhh!!! Wow!!!!! Look!!!! My book of the month arrived!!!!
Gotta go!

.

Says more about the guys then it does about the girls. And everyone looks bad.

@msh Great answer! If one partner has a lot more assets than the other I can imagine the prenup as a test to verify that the cash strapped one isn’t getting married for the money.
About 50% of marriages end in divorce. About 30–40% of the divorces happen within the first 10 years of marriage. With odds like that it seems almost irresponsible to not at least have the discussion if there is a large income or property imbalance.

The RNC should do a video about the preservation of white, male wealth vs. the sanctity of marriage. Simply end it with a fucking atomic bomb going off.

How long is she held to this? If she stays home and raises kids, how will that be valued as adding to the family assets? She wont be earnimg money to buy those types of assets he currently has. Will he just consider her a moocher if she raises the kids?

@cazzie Your points are why I suggest a time limit like 5 years. After that time everything is equal. That would prevent or at least reduce cases of professional moochers – in both directions. .
Imagine a case where one person has a lot of assets: house, business, cash, etc. and the other has only credit card debt. If that couple has no children and divorces after 2 years is it reasonable, fair, equitable, etc., to split all the assets?
Personally, I don’t think so.
Culture and religious differences? No problem. Race? That’s fine. Same sex? Ok with me. But big income disparity? Now there’s trouble. :-)

Who says it is the ‘little’ woman staying at home to raise the kids? Oh, wait, the little WHITE woman staying at home? (There- I’m a racist AND a height bigot!)
Oh, wait again! If we’re in Kentucky, the LITTLE GAY WHITE MAN can’t even HAVE a prenupt- let alone have a wealthy WHITE man! So let’s DO keep it just like the traditionalists-
NO Little WHITE Gay Men are aloud to stay at home raising ANY children- emotionless prenupt whatsoever! Forgot the CAPS! Aw, (WHITE) man!
Oh, wait! What if it is a Feminist? A femanist with a prenupt? Holy crap!
uhmmmm…. ok, No Short WHITE….....................Gay…..Short…....................no wait! No white…...oh hell, I forgot- all CAPS when it’s WHITE again…. Ok, let’s see….NO….

@msh

What in God’s holy name are you blathering about?

@Darth_Algar – I couldn’t understand it either, but it was sort of entertaining.

Read the prior posts.
Please don’t make me get out the felt board and pointer.
Or puppets.

Just had an interesting discussion about this. Here, living together as defactos makes it possible for the property to be split 50/50. A pre-nup would mean nothing. So, a man I was seeing had a mate who is a multi millionaire. He had been seeing a woman for the past 8 years. I asked why they broke up. “Well, she had been pushing for marriage, and joe really didn’t want to lose half of everything.” Another man, closer to my age, said that this law makes men hesitant to marry or live together. Sounds like a trust issue to me, I guess they could cuddle their money.

@msh

I read the prior posts just fine. Yours, however, was naught but rambling nonsense with RANDOM CAPITALIZED WORDS to make it look extra IDIOTIC.

You can spot one via self awareness.
RIGHT???????

^wall of text, what’s the tl;dr….that’s all she’s saying.

^ No, no. I’m not even talking about the wall of text, but rather the inane blathering.

Thank you for CLAIRIFYING THAT!!!!
Speaking of inane…

Well inane blathering might be boiled down to a tl;dr.

I think if the people have children from a previous marriage, they NEED a prenup. I’ve heard too many stories where a man remarried after his first wife died. When he died, the second wife got all of his assets. When she died, she gave all the assets to her own children and nothing to her husband’s children. It was really sad when property that had been in the family for several generations was suddenly out of the family. The prenup doesn’t just cover divorce, it also covers what happens after you die. If you need anything to happen other than, “every asset goes to the surviving spouse” you need a prenup. A will will work, but a prenup is extra protection.