I have to disagree, as relationships are not a fixed concept.
99.9% of the time they are. In Western society, it is standard that a relationship = monogamy, and that by 'committing' to this person and entering a relationship (aside from a casual agreement like dating), you are agreeing to be monogamous, essentially 'locked in' to only seeing this one person.
Indeed, there are many open relationships that exist on this plane we call life. In such relationships, they are free to be with whom they want, when they want, yet still be in a relationship with one significant another. Whether you agree with such an arangement is a moot point, as it exists and works for them (whoever they may be).
But that isn't a monogamous relationship, that isn't 99.9% of relationships, generally speaking. I'm sure swingers do exist, but they are a small minority out of a large whole.
And why would anyone get into a relationship, of which the sole purpose is to have exclusive rights to the other person, and they to you, if the only intention is to cheat on them with other couples?
Yes, I am sure these couples do exist, but you are talking about such a small minority of people that it really doesn't apply to the overall whole, and what the vast majority of people see a relationship as, and expect from it.
Also in terms of marriage and more official unions, things such as pre-nupes etc can guarantee financial independance, and just because you are married, it doesn't necessarily mean you have to be joined at the hip, finance wise, although that is the norm from by-gone ages.
Incorrect. Prenuptial agreements are routinely disputed and overturned. You only have to look as far as divorces in America, say big sports stars or celebrities to see that the wife signed a prenuptial agreement before the husband got rich, he offered her a small amount, and since he hit the big time or got famous she wants more, and gets it.
When the circumstances of the marriage change, prenuptial can basically be used as toilet paper. The law is the same in Britain as I found out:
Secondly, if a marriage lasts for a substantial time, the circumstances of either the husband or wife can change radically from those anticipated at the time of entering into the contract (by having children, for instance), making the agreement irrelevant. Current UK law ensures that "the court has a duty to consider all the circumstances of the case when considering financial relief as between the parties". Put more simply,the court will take into account the individual circumstances of the marital dispute and allocate financial support accordingly.
http:
//archive.oxfordmail.net/1998/9/5/84464.html
So if you have your wife sign a prenuptial agreement that she gets no spousal support, the bare minimum of your possessions and money the law requires and none of your property, and then 5 years later you have become very successful, whereas you were not when she signed it, she has every right to dispute it and she will most likely win according to the law.
Prenuptials can prevent one from losing everything, but only under the right circumstances. They by no means guarantee anything.