Fiancé asking for a prenup

Your points are incoherent.

Eh? Plus I'm mid 40s I'm not that bloody old! My job is on a par to my DH's, where did I state you should, "entrust your financial life" ? You have some pretzel logic there!

Honestly, when I read this post, I feel that a lot of these women are predatory and their dishonest will be in A. Terrible situation have witnessed their friends in this terrible situation. And still say you should marry for love.You should definitely not enter into a contract for feelings.

No, I don't you read a very long rambling post in detail to make a sarcastic comment? you are the definition of weak and I believe that young women need to be protected from women like you. Getting the wrong advice from an older woman is one of the most destructive events that can trigger poor outcomes for a younger woman. I am hoping mum's net is a place where women truly want the next generation of women to do better than them. You do not entrust your financial life to anyone. You are in a relationship because you love and respect your partner. NotbBecause you think they should owe you that doesn't work. Di not marry for money, it doesn't make sense.

I think you need to look at the state of that tortuous post, before you accuse of others of being "poorly educated"!

Your just picking now.
Its about a pre-nup.
I added an opinion like the rest move on.

I get the impression that there's some very poorly educated women on here who could only attack posters who are writing perfectly rational statements fundamentally the stuff that they're saying is just true. And for whatever reason that truth makes you respond foolishly, the women talking about, you should hold him Barry for love. It's probably because they have absolutely nothing else to offer. The women are arguing for this are functionally dependent on someone subsidising for them for the rest of their life. And definitely, if younger women are reading this thread and the no circumstances in trust. Your future to someone else that makes no sense if you are a younger woman and you're reading this, understand that marriage is a legal contract. Logically, if it is only feelings based you do not need to get married. That doesn't make the feelings real again. For younger women reading this thread, look at the woman who are saying Marry for love. Then, go back through my mum's net and look at what happens to those women. You get into a relationship for love. You get married with your eyes open. Don't be pathetic Don't be a walkover and don't be a passive participant in your own life. Older generations of women have made serious mistakes. You do not want to be a forty five year old woman who has not worked for ten to fifteen years.Who is about to get divorced as someone earlier has said?Unless you have married a millionaire who for some reason hasn't protected their assets at all.You will suffer a loss.

How is what you're describing, "quite the opposite" when you literally go on to explain how marriage is purely a legal contract, just like a paragon of charmlessness would?

I haven’t made anything up. My point was if a woman gives up work, for most, it is a choice. Perhaps not clear on reread if you thought I meant the majority give up work- I meant those who do choose to. A minority will not have a choice if circumstances dictate.

they’re also recent figures. The women suffering from that choice now are in their 40’s and 50’s, grown children, so on marriage breakdown they have very little beyond half a house.

you’re still looking at 25% of women choose to give up work. plus you don’t include part time figures. What % of men give up work? I don’t have figures and cba but willing to bet it’s nowhere near 25%.

so I stand by my statements that it’s women who are screwed over if they make the choice to sahm or otherwise reduce their earning potential, men do not make the same choice, because they know they are better off working.

No. Quite the opposite, actually, I think it’s incredibly stupid for people to get married without thinking about any of this. Marriage is a legal contract. Weddings and romance are entirely optional. You wouldn’t sign any other contract without reading and considering the terms of it, would you? Or asking to amend parts you felt were unfavourable to you?

I think you mean sex, not gender. And men don't give birth, so it's very much about sex

You are literally making this up. 76% Majority of female parents work with a child work Do not misrepresent or present your own view as fact. I know mumsnet berates working mums routinely, but housewife sahm is a minority activity
SOURCE ONS stats ONS stats

• In April to June 2021, three in four mothers with dependent children (75.6%) were in work in the UK, reaching its highest level in the equivalent quarter over the last 20 years (66.5% in 2002).
• The employment rate was higher for mothers than either women or men without dependent children and has been since 2017.
• From 2020, in families where both parents are employed, it has become more common for both parents to work full-time, rather than a man working full-time with a partner working part-time.

And also making sure that if the single salary does cover a pension etc that one is set up and contributions are made. Not some vague promise that “I will look after you” because that means shit when you actually split and they are no longer interested in looking after you.

If you have an ultra wealthy DH, ie where there are capital assets of several million you will be fine as a SAHM in the event of divorce. However many of the women who do stop work have a DH who earns maybe 100-120k and the main assets is the family home which is mortgaged. While you have enough income for one parent to stay at home you are likely to be screwed on divorce. You’d get enough for a house, maybe a bit of maintenance for a few years and then child support. Earning capacity is a massive asset, probably the most valuable thing someone can have but it’s not shared on divorce. You need to be seriously asset rich to even consider giving up your career.

Pre nups become post nups. It is recommended that they are updated/amended following the birth of each child or every 5 years.

couples who have pre nups don’t necessarily keep their finances separate within their marriage, it just means, should the split, they know roughly where they and the other stand

Clearly the biology is different.

but the reality is most women choose to give up work. Men don’t. Which means they also keep their pensions, both state and work- remember once your children are over 12 your NI contributions stop, so you will not get full state pension unless you work your 20 odd years on top.

as with all these things we need to look at why men don’t make the same choices as women. Who really benefits from women having the “luxury” of not working or working part time? Men. If marriage truly was financial “protection” why aren’t men going part time, sharing the financial and domestic load? Because it isn’t shared, it’s their money they choose to share with a spouse because they benefit. They stay at work giving them financial independence, while someone else does all their cooking and cleaning.

women do need to be making sure their futures are secure. Either by staying at work or only giving up if the sole salary can fund a decent pension and significant savings to compensate. The vast majority won’t stretch.

Don't you find it a bit robotic to think so pragmatically about marriage?

If my DH had come to me with a pre-nup to sign when he proposed to me, in all honesty I would have replied "no I bloody don't, you paragon of charmlessness!" And I would have thought he'd had a lobotomy.

Of course there is a difference which is why it’s important not to leave yourself financially vulnerable. Marriage doesn’t really protect you - divorced women often suffer old age poverty. Nothing protects you apart from having your own assets and earning capacity. The two older age women I know who are really struggling financially now were married to wealthy-ish men and were SAHMs from when their kids were born. They both got divorced in their 50s, both because their husbands cheated. Both got financial provision and short term spousal maintenance but that wasn’t/isn’t enough. No pension (there are very few pension sharing orders made). Their exes are now very wealthy. They own their homes but they’re in need of repairs which they can’t afford and due to high property costs, selling and downsizing not really an option. They wouldn’t be in this position had they not been SAHMs. If you gave up your job at 27 you can’t really get anything when you return to the job market aged 54.

Its not about pregnancy it's not about gender.
Its about a prenuptial agreement.

So you think men and women experience pregnancy, childbirth and the early years the same? No difference at all between the sexed. Nor afterwards? Or post divorce? The statistics and biologics must be lying then - strange.

Not to me no.
Marry for love not money.
If a brand name or bank balance is what makes you want to marry someone says more about that pearson than words do.

Men need to protect themselfs just as us women do.
And tbh a lot of men are now doing just that and i dont blame them.

I disagree, if it is just family wealth and you haven't lifted a finger does it matter.

It dont matter how, you dont just give up half to someone else.

I mean surely it depends how you got it- how about if you haven't earned it?

I would also not be happy at all about this. Trust your gut OP x

Yes this.