Mmm, no. No that is not smart at all unless you want this relationship to fall apart before you even have the chance for it to end in divorce. You did read the whole post right?
She clearly already isn't a fan of the prenup. Going further along with it behind her back could easily make things a whole lot worse.
Oh, and word of advise. Generally not a good idea in a relationship to plan to get your partner to do something you know they don't want to do without involving them until most of the work is done. They will realize the truth, which is that it means you have no respect for how they feel. How could you when you so disregard it that you've already assumed you will get them to do what you want with absolutely no consideration at all that you might do what they want?
If you want a prenup, by all means continue trying to explain that to her if you feel she doesn't really understand your reasons. But don't be deceptive, don't be manipulative, and be open to their opinions too.
That's the only way a relationship between two people who don't always agree on everything can work.
Either partner going behind the others back is a bad idea unless it's secretly planning their bday gift or etc
However you point out that OP asking
for further discussion of a pre-nup when partner has already expeessed dislike for the idea, is showing that they dont respect their partners feelings
But Isn't the partner NOT respecting OPs feelings by refusing to sign? Again refer to my above post as to why/ how this is something much like choosing the home a married couple will live in; it should protect both parties and both parties should be comfortable with it or find another solution . Like a compromise of sorts ( an example: the pre-nup can be stated however they want. It can say simply that what each party Brought to the marriage stays the possession of each party should the marriage end, but that wealth or items or property Attained *Jointly* during the marriage would be a shared there for split asset should the marriage end. There can be alllllll kinds of stipulations. Let's say theres a clause stating that if, During the marriage, one party Inherits wealth or property from relatives / friends they were in touch with prior to the marriage and that the inheritance itself names in legal terms simply the Party, not the spouse, by name, then that could be regarded as a solely owned assett upon (the Event of ) a divorce.
It doesn't need to be such a bone of contention for couples. It can be a very healthy and regular Agreed Upon compromise, if one partner really isn't as you Stated a "fan" of the idea. It can be worded however the couple agrees to word it, protecting each of them.
If that compromise sucks, there are plenty of other compromises they could come up with including agreeing not to marry therefore not having to deal with the issue of mine/ yours/ ours. (At least to perhaps a lesser degree the law does not see so many things as Shared assets if the couple is not legally married).
Balance of power is key I think
Equality. Not one person Demanding anything. Not the other person simply Shutting down ideas they may not like.
Respect for one another simply does not hold up when there's a radical imbalance of power.
That's my opinion (twice married one divorced no pre-nup experience but Lots of experience petitioning courts to file agreed upon documents. )