DINK holds basically no risk if you don't get married until after you retire.

It's just that most people view those double incomes as their path to an early retirement. "Retire in 30s or early 40s!? Sign me up!" Of course chicks prone to DINK arrangements are A Types, who no matter their level of femininity almost always want to keep working. That or they are the party that barely contributes and merely gives a minor boost to that early retirement while being entitled to half of their combined incomes. Preventing divorce rape becomes a matter of congruency between stated preferences and demonstrated behavior.

No your 35 y/o wife that has lived a high powered life does not want to move to an inexpensive (but palatial) estate at half of the cost of your Big City residence. She is not going to take up gardening, or cooking, or ETSY vendoring. Relationships are like an island: if you didn't bring it, it aint there.

Don't bother trying to tell that to the DINK guys that want to retire and live on boats or live in a place with all the seasons. Where an incentive exists to engage in a given behavior, that behavior is more likely to occur. The majority of early retirement guys don't actually insure their partners share their interests or desires. They come up with a game plan and their women say, "Yeah that sounds nice." Then when they pull the ejection lever and parachute away with half of their shared worth, both parties are back in the work force.

It just so happens that women in that position become the ideal partner for a man that is ready to retire independently. She has half of the value of her previous arrangement and the man is untouchable.

I've seen this happen even with couples that actually did share interests. The woman grabbed a branch to a wealthier man, and forced her ex back into the work force. All while she continued to live the retired life they both worked for.

There is no comeuppance in the game, just winners and losers.