5 Comments
User's avatar
Nina Bloch's avatar

Look, I think the fact that fiancé said it wasn’t necessary and then sprang in on her at the last minute is skeevy. But I think the meaning of the prenup is one of those great dividers where it’s just fundamentally hard to see the other side.

Of course nobody wants to think when they get married that it might not be forever. And I think that “all-in” is a great approach in general. But life can take ugly and unexpected turns. I actually think it’s an act of love and maturity to say “one day, for whatever reason, I may not have your best interests at heart. And so I would rather make hard decisions now, while I still love you, than run the risk of treating you badly in the future when I won’t be able to care for you as much.”

Expand full comment
Rachel Wildavsky's avatar

Thanks, Nina. That certainly puts the best possible gloss on it. But "I'm doing this for your protection" would be a hard sell, when the protected one doesn't want it, and the document itself limits what the protected one would get.

In fact, if I had a fiance who said that to me, I'd smell a rat.

Expand full comment
Nina Bloch's avatar

That’s kind of my point about it being a fundamental divide - I would smell a rat at a partner being unwilling to sign a prenup if I wanted one

Expand full comment
Rachel Wildavsky's avatar

Ah, now I see your point. I hadn't considered the possibility of mistrust on the other side.

But if you follow that where it leads, you end up opposing all prenups. In other words, the only fix for this problem is the all-in, full-love-and-trust, tear-up-the-financials version of Let's Get Married.

Expand full comment
Erin O'Connor's avatar

I love how you break this down. Art.

Expand full comment