So, basically, you're looking at this prenup as a type of insurance? The man would be "insured" against the woman leaving him? And she should trust his judgment enough that she should be willing to sign such a prenup as an act of love and a sign of her future willingness to obey, correct?
OK, I can get that.
However. All these arguments are presuming the woman is the one to initiate divorce. What protection would be provided for the woman should the man decide that he wants a divorce? What if he grows tired of his sweet, lovable wife. One who is obedient and a good wife and mother. You're saying the woman can change after marriage. Well, would you not agree that a man could change as well? Where's her insurance?
Yes, the prenup should include protection of the woman, too. The text should include that a woman gets up to half of what the man built and acquired after the marriage, or whatever they both agree on that's written in the prenup, in the event the man "divorces" his wife for no reason, or he's been proven to commit adultery, abuse or any other situation unbecoming of a husband.
But the man must be very careful and consider strict limitations on what is given to the wife, because the court system is so corrupt & subversive, it would award a woman what's underscored in the prenup simply because the wife videotapes the man sneezing, and the court adjudicates that as "malicious intent to harm the wife",
Poll
