So Mint.com has this infographic on the numbers of cohabitating couples in the U.S.:
If you haven’t already seen the whole version, I recommend you do. It’s insightful and also (in my view) disturbing.
Among their recommendations is a “cohabitant prenup” – a list of each partner’s financial assets and liabilities and how to split weekly, monthly and annual costs.
My first thought is: seriously?
Granted, I’m biased. I’m in the declining number of people who’ve chosen to marry rather than cohabit.
But for me, prenups demonstrate that you don’t fully trust the other person enough to be with you, all the way, 100 percent, “till death do us part.” You’re creating this financial backup chute for the possibility of something less than total union. In my view, that doesn’t square with the definition of marriage as a lifelong commitment.
So to have a “cohabitant prenup” is taking this even one step further. Let’s have a prenup because I don’t trust you enough to stay married to you. Let’s cohabit because I don’t trust you enough to marry you. Wait – let’s have a prenup of a prenup because I don’t trust you enough to cohabit.
No doubt prenup proponents will point out the financial wisdom and prudence of having a backup plan. I’m all for financial wisdom and prudence, but I suggest something a little more old-fashioned.
You don’t trust your significant other with finances? You probably have good reason. So what makes you think you should trust that person with your life and every other thing that you have?
Stay single … and stay solvent.