A lot of it depends. The benefits of a prenup can be marginal depending on the laws of the state
if both parties have similar assets and income. Of course there seems to be gender bias in the courts, and even abuse of process (restraining orders based on fictions to gain control of the house, etc).
Some states are fillial responsibility states. I wanted a prenup to protect our assets during the marriage, so that the state wouldn't be able to come after stuff in my name to support her deadbeat dad. We're protected in a different way because his prior actions was considered abandonment. If we had any "real" money (wife's mother was very dismissive about the amount I saved up), then i guess I could still set up a trust.
I still think a prenup would have been good. Why not decide on what is fair and reasonable when on good terms and you're not clouded by hate or resentment? It would save massively on legal fees. My wife didn't want one. She never gave a reason, but it's safe to assume that the conditions under the court eiild be more favorable than a prenup that excludes alimony. Her mother made some huge deal about me "not knowing what I'm doing", even though she has a prenup and couldn't give any explanation of why it's a bad idea. So overall, it feels like I was taken advantage of and they basically bullied me (repeated unsupported emotional attacks) into not getting one.
Frankly, I don't see much reason to get married in today's world. Sure, there are some minor or fringe benefits when dealing with taxes and stuff, but most companies are recognizing domestic partners for benefits even without official domestic partner certificates. Marriage is just a piece of paper from the government and shouldn't be neccessary to validate one's relationship.