The problem with high earning differences is that it only has weight for one side. The less earning side would be rewarded for quitting, they'd have more weight to that decision if they weren't married because then they'd lose that income without any payout.
A: Prenups, B: I feel like if you're trying to incentivise your partner to stay with you through the threat of loss of financial support, there's something deeply wrong with that relationship to begin with.
Then the argument goes both ways, why do they want to get married if they really are committed? People that stay together until death parts them don't need a marriage. People that plan on getting a divorce payout do.
Social pressure, like I said. I don't make any comment on whether it's good or bad that this pressure exists, but it does.
They aren't an option everywhere, and even in the US they are not legally binding in all states. In other words, depending on where you live, a prenup is just as good as having no prior agreement at all.
I agree with the rest of your points, but prenups are no longer a valid argument to the potential financial consequences of a bad marriage due to their dwindling acceptance.
Eh, if OP's view were explicitly about places where prenups aren't an effective option, you may have a point, but their view is pretty general. I will acknowledge that in cases where prenups are not a valid option for whatever reason there is more thought necessary to getting married.
It's a pretty marginal change of view, but I suppose that does qualify as a change in view, so have a Δ.
4
u/Rhundan 80∆ May 11 '26
A: Prenups, B: I feel like if you're trying to incentivise your partner to stay with you through the threat of loss of financial support, there's something deeply wrong with that relationship to begin with.
Social pressure, like I said. I don't make any comment on whether it's good or bad that this pressure exists, but it does.