I, too, am happily married. When I met Mr. B, he had a '64 Plymouth Fury (rusty) -- and having just returned from being stationed in Okinawa, his other belongings consisted of 4 huge Pioneer speakers, a Garrard turntable, and a Seiko watch -- along with a lot of scuba gear. I had a Triumph GT6 and a few odds and ends of furniture. (When we got married, we used two of those Pioneer speakers for end tables in our living room.) So that was pretty much it. We had never heard of a prenup and there would have been no need anyway.
But what I am talking about, in general, in this thread, -- even though I jumped the track, sort of, is if someone wants to marry in later life, especially if there are families from previous marriages, it could be well worth looking into a prenup.
A prenup, or lack thereof, could have a positive or negative effect on family dynamics -- like what I referred to in my previous post where I quoted the family friend who thought hers helped the families to be more accepting. (This lady had a few bucks and was nobody's fool. The guy she was getting ready to marry was well set, too.)
I do agree with you that marrying later in life can really mess with finances. At this time, a new marriage can affect pensions and SS, along with accumulated investments and properties.
But -- I must take umbrage with that "(especially men)" thing you said. Guess what. Women have their own money -- money they have made with careers, money they have been good at investing, and women are even allowed to own property now.
And, don't forget that the "Live Close By, Visit Often" philosophy -- as K.T. Oslin sang about -- works just fine for many independent women. Move in? Well, that can work, too. But not a fast move.
The idea of prenups is far more nuanced than it appears on the surface. Sometimes people tend to knee-jerk react at the mention of a prenup, thinking it's cold, not romantic. But I think playing the idea out in discussion, at least, is a good idea. It does not mean the love is not true, but when it comes to mixing up assets, especially in later in life marriages -- "What's love got to do with it?"
Romanticizing and/or ignoring practical considerations before a later in life marriage could come with complications and regrets when the sad day comes when one is gone. For instance, if one of the couple owns the house, do the kids have the right to sell it or can the surviving spouse, or whoever it is, get to live there if they so choose?
I know one guy in TV who has a woman pushing him to get married, but she will not sign a prenup. Now, that's a big red flag.
It works the other way, too. I met a woman who had been cleaned out by a loser who got her after she was widowed and had inherited more money than she ever realized they had. The loser married her, had her set him up in some stupid "business" that, of course, failed, and then he left.
(I will say that I wish more women took an interest in investing and completely understood their family finances, instead of just saying, "Oh my husband takes care of all that." But that is a discussion for another time.)
In many cases, late marriages are between two people who have found each other, fallen in love, and are well matched for spending the rest of life together. BUT that does not mean they should not take care of business first. Sometimes, they just don't think of it or want to bring it up. Actually, a prenup can protect a surviving spouse, along with other heirs.
I am annoyingly, exceedingly, excruciatingly practical. I know. (sigh)
Buzzkill Boomer
PS: On a second look, I realize I probably should not have inserted a segue into this thread. Sometimes, I just like to debate the topic of prenups. But my prenup posts would have been more appropriate elsewhere. The OP seems like a lovely woman and I wish her and her new husband all the best. Please forgive my awkward intrusion into the kind question about looking forward to a new family.