# Why aren't Prenuptial Agreements talked about here much?



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

I was curious how noticably absent this topic has been from the forum and was wondering why I was the first one to get around to bringing it up? (well, I didn't do a search . . .it's just that it doesn't ever get mentioned here in conversation)

I think Pre-nups get a very bad rap in American Culture.

Most people are totally focused on the part of the agreement where it says how assets will be split if there is an unfortunate chance of divorce.

But from what I have read on the subject, that is only about 10% of a standard Pre-nup.

A standard pre-nuptial agreement will talk about how money will be handled during the marriage (separate checking, joint checking), life insurance, what would happen if one is disabled perhaps, the division of labor among the couple with child-rearing, etc.

I have even read some couples extend the pre-nup to their sexual life, going as far as to indicate an average, maximum and minimum frequency of sex. (3-5X/week on average, 1x/week minimum, 6x/maximum)

I know we could have used one of these, on all dimensions!!!!

Hey, more power to the couples that get more and more detailed!

I think pre-nups could save a lot of heartache and be a tool to strengthen the institution of marriage.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

What I would notice would be. . .no matter what. . .if there isn't a Written Pre-Nuptial Agreement, you know what?

There is an "Implied Silent One."

For instance. . .many women operate on this clause:

*ahem, speaking legalese in the best way I know how  *

_

In the event that I feel as the female party that I am being overburdened with the chore of child-rearing, I am free to exercise the "No Sex" Clause at any time without notice to said partner in this agreement.

I can exercise this clause without prejudice _

or if you are a guy

_In the event I feel my wife has put on a few extra pounds and does not look like a supermodel, I reserve the right to exercise the sexual withdrawal clause and have the marriage enter a state of non-consummation.

Said party reserves the right to substitute a six-pack of Schlitz in lieu of sexual relations.

Futhermore, it is the parties understanding that a beer gut does not trump the middle age paunch of said female party _

See how we all have our Pre-nups no matter what?

Why not just get it down in writing and hammer it out at least?


----------



## greeneyeddolphin (May 31, 2010)

I think the biggest part of why they're frowned upon so much is that most people only know about the part that stipulates what happens in the event of divorce. I mean, if you asked 10 people what a prenup was, probably 9 of them would say it was about divorce. And the 10th, if he/she actually knew more about it, would probably be a lawyer. And ok, yes, I made those numbers up, but I'd bet they're not far from the truth. 

Honestly, though, I didn't really know about the other aspects until you listed them here. So I don't think I'm too far off the mark in thinking that most people think the same way. And no one really wants to think about their marriage ending even before it's officially begun, so when they hear prenup they have an immediate, negative reaction. 

Even with all the other aspects, I don't know that a prenup is really always necessary. I think if couples would just honestly and openly discuss those other things before marriage, and be honest about what they expect and want and are willing to give, that would strengthen the institution of marriage. Too many people go into it just assuming things will be fine and nothing needs to be discussed, or they agree to things they don't really want to agree to just for the sake of peace or desperation or whatever. 

I know the first time I got married, I knew nothing really about relationships and marriage except seeing family and friends. And of course, you only see what they want you to see, so I never saw the fights, the discussions, etc. I figured things would work themselves out, and learned the hard way that that wasn't the case. 

Now, in my relationship with my boyfriend, I know better. We discuss things like finances, household stuff, medical/health stuff, etc. Anytime a new situation presents itself, we discuss it and decide how to handle it this time and in the future. We discuss what situations we can handle without talking to each other, which ones must be discussed with each other, and which ones can be discussed/not discussed on a case by case basis and how to determine whether to discuss/not discuss.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Yes, but if just the mere mention of a pre-nup will stimulate discussion, than that's a good thing.

Like if you knew this Friday was a pre-nup night where you were going to talk about things, you would start thinking.

And there is something to be said for signing an agreement. 

I mean it's all well and good to discuss things and say, "Yeah, hon. . .that makes sense." 

But it's another thing to actually sign a document that is binding in some capacity (but of course you want to be flexible).

For instance, if you have an agreement that a man is supposed to provide and a woman is supposed to raise the kids, that's fine. But of course, what happens if the man is disabled and no matter what disability policies provide, they can't always fill in the holes, right?

I think the document could be "fluid" too as the years go on. . .things change. People change.

You should have a process for producing an amendment, like a 2/2's majority can add or change an Amendment, with minority input from children or something.

It's not like you want to found a marriage like some country that founded their Nation on a Document made by a bunch of old men over 200 years ago and then try to figure out what you were thinking then, right?

That would be a disaster for a nation and for a marriage as well if we operated like that


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Scanner,
I think Trucker is correct. Most don't know anything about a pre-nup except in the financial sense.
I also get the sense that alot of us on this website were married young or shall I say before we accumulated many assets so for many of us, there was nothing financially to protect. Now the pre-nup that you mention is different entirely. I think alot more people would be on board with the kind you mention.
I certainly think that a financial pre-nup is much more agreeable to both parties coming in to their second marriage. They have already experienced their former marriage and most likely have assets that need protecting, if not children. Their eyes are more wide open the second time around. I know that if I ever got remarried I would insist on one. I don't have alot of assets but I have a good deal of equity in our home, paid for cars and very little debt. I also have two children that I would make certain to protect and not allow someone to take half of what is rightfully my kids.


----------



## greeneyeddolphin (May 31, 2010)

I see your point, the problem with the written document is that in order to accommodate every change, you could end up with a document with tens of thousands of pages and weighing hundreds of pounds by the time you've been married 30-40 years. And some situations are obvious in that things would have to change. 

For example, your man provides/gets disabled premise. I think most women could easily acknowledge that if they'd agreed to raise the kids while their husband provided, and then he got disabled, that they'd have to return to work. I think there's few women who would insist that he continue to provide if he obviously couldn't. 

I also think the document could end up creating more problems in the marriage than it solves. It's a contract...so with every disagreement, it's going to be pulled out, and if they still don't agree, off to court they go. Not only does that tie up the courts from dealing with more serious issues, but it also could create more arguments between the couple because each one sees their side as being supported by the document. 

I also don't think allowing the children to have any input is a good idea. While children do result from the marriage, ultimately a marriage is between two people, and those two people are the only ones who should have any say in what happens in it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Trucker,
I totally agree. Perhaps a pre-nup could be financial but also include other aspects like what religion any resulting children would be brought up in, certain expectations about sex, perhaps do they both work, etc. etc. I think that would be a good thing for both parties but even that has issues.
The problem arises (as you pointed out) that things change. People get laid off or get sick. What would happen if there was an agreement that stated both work and both have sex x number of times a week. Let's say for argument purposes that one party get's laid off and it takes 6+ months to find a similar job. What then? In this economy that is a pretty normal time frame. Could the offending party be dragged in to court and it be grounds for divorce for not holding up their end of the deal? On the sex part, what if a wife got sick with cancer and could not have sex or at least could not feel up to any sexual activity due to chemo/radiation? Could that according to a pre-nup be grounds for divorce? It is a slippery slope and kind of scary to me at least. 
According to rumor, Bill and Melinda Gates have a pre-nup that while obviously is heavy on the financial part also mentions other things. Those things include how to raise the resulting children with regards to religion, whether spanking is accepted/how to discipline the children, where they would live and what schools the children would go to. It included items about whether she would still work after children were born and spending limits for both of them. I thought that part was funny but it is about communication between the two of them. Supposedly that limit is $20k. Anything over that amount they have to discuss! LOL. It supposedly also includes things like He get's to go away with his friends for two weeks without her and she does the same. Also that after a certain number of years married that they would create a foundation that both of them are trustees over. 
THAT is a pre-nup I could get on board with. I mean, how many marriages have serious problems due to discourse about how to raise children and money?


----------



## Chelhxi (Oct 30, 2008)

We were both 31 when we got married and had some assets. We agreed on a pre-nup. Ours was very simple:
- all money is separate unless intentionally made joint (joint house/mortgage/accounts etc) - that solves the problem re: disability or illness. If one of us couldn't work we'd start some joint accounts. Otherwise it's 50/50 for joint expenses as we have the same earning potential.
- if there are any kids the previous part is nullified (no intention to have kids - I had a tubal a month after the wedding) so no big deal here, but it had been discussed in detail, in case of "accidents".

That was pretty much it. We also got a will done up a couple months after the wedding. We are giving all assets to the other party, and then split 50/50 between our friends and family once the second person dies.

But our situation is simple: we trust each other to exercise good judgement when it comes to money, both are savers, have good credit ratings, no debt etc.

I really think pre-nups are given a bad rap. To me it says that I am not marrying him for money. We both chose to be together; we aren't trapped because we couldn't leave due to financial reasons.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Well, that's just it - a pre-nup. could be as small or big as the couple wants.

For the last poster, it was a small document and they were agreeing to not have kids so that does simplify anything.

I don't visit the Infertility forum that much but there is a zinger to bring up.

What happens when a couple doesn't conceive within X # of years?

Is it the spouses obligation to spend $100,000 in infertility treatments in order to produce offspring?

May be better to know these things up front.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

I would not chose to enter a marriage in which child rearing and sex was prearranged and agreed to contractually. Life is fluid. One cannot know in some future time what the circumstances will be. Take for instance child rearing. I know so much more about parenting before I had kids! And a great deal of what I thought I knew was wrong.

I try to imagine a contractual sexual agreement and I turn cold. Gee honey, you need to get it up now since you owe me 2 more screws this week. Or post child bearing, ooops forgot to put in the prenup that I get a break after child birth.

That is not loving each other. That is not learning and growing together. 

I know for a FACT that I cannot control all the external factors that are going to spring up in our lives. Instead it is a great comfort to me that I know that my husband is a man of great character. I know that he loves me a ton. We BOTH know that it is easier to understand and get what WE want so that the vast amount of our thought and effort should go into trying to understand and achieve what the OTHER PERSON wants.

When it comes to what most of us think of as a pre-nup, I would personally not chose to have one. It really would not come for us since you have to HAVE assets to care how they get divided. But I can see where people would want to protect themselves from some of the vagaries of the divorce system... I have a hard time objecting to them for people who find them useful.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I don't think pre-nups get discussed _here_ much, because most of us didn't get the memo before blissfully, and obliviously, sashaying off to the ball, only to later watch the fairy tale turn into a pumpkin.

Wanting the fairytale makes it very difficult to conceive of the pumpkin.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Vthomeschoolmom:

I get what you are saying about not wanting a pre-nup. to spell out a sex life for each spouse. . .I was only making a point that you can take it as far as you want or not as deep as you want.

If our churches, synagogues and temples did their part in perhaps explaining all obligations of the marital contract (sex, finances, parenting), where obligations begin and where they end, perhaps there would be little need for pre-nups. But right now, I see no evidence that the clergymen and women of our society are having an impact on divorces/happy marriages.

My experience here has been when I have done informal polls on Pre-Cana and what was discussed, I don't hear anything was discussed about the "Pumpkin" like Deejo says. I am not sure what exactly goes on at Pre-Cana (spelling?) then.

Is this just an opportunity to sign up "tithers?" What goes on?

I would think the Catholic Church and other churches who are so critical of divorce could hang up a mirror and examine themselves if this is the case.

I don't know about the sex-prenup thing now, having been in a sexless marriage.

I think I would put it a pre-nup, something loose anyway.

I think sex is somewhere in the deal of marriage, unless my memory is fuzzy. 

Of course, the woman can always just lie there and the man can make it a 2.5 second event. I get what you are saying - there is the "law" and then there is the "spirit of the law", which you can only deduce why the law was drafted.

The spirit of any sex-pre-nup (and I don't know why I/we are focusing on that - is that me  ) is to say, "I expect we will both have a healthy, loving sex life to nourish our bodies, minds, and souls and as expression of love."

or if both partners are asexual, than great.

"It is the understanding of each party that sex is not desired and will not be pursued for purposes other than procreation."

It's not to spell out a "Sex Plan." (Oral Mondays, Doggie-Style Wednesdays). Although if the couple wants to. . .more power to them.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Scannerguard said:


> Vthomeschoolmom:
> 
> I get what you are saying about not wanting a pre-nup. to spell out a sex life for each spouse. . .I was only making a point that you can take it as far as you want or not as deep as you want.
> 
> If our churches, synagogues and temples did their part in perhaps explaining all obligations of the marital contract (sex, finances, parenting), where obligations begin and where they end, perhaps there would be little need for pre-nups.


What obligations? What obligations do you wish you had known more about? What are the *contractual* sexual *obligations*?

I don't think that there is any consensus on what these obligations ARE. 

My recollection of pre-cana included things like basic financial stuff. Nuts and bolts, how to make a budget. Pay the savings account first. Recognize the stress that tight finances can cause on a marriage. Recognize it for what it IS ... just a detail to be dealt with.

One segment had to do with remaining in love by spending time together, perhaps a bit of info there that might have been of use for you and your wife.I remember him talking about making time to be together and have fun. Don't allow excuses like money and time get in the way. Make snow angels together. It doesn't cost any money. You don't need a sitter... 




> But right now, I see no evidence that the clergymen and women of our society are having an impact on divorces/happy marriages.
> 
> My experience here has been when I have done informal polls on Pre-Cana and what was discussed, I don't hear anything was discussed about the "Pumpkin" like Deejo says. I am not sure what exactly goes on at Pre-Cana (spelling?) then.


I don't know what the pumpkin is. Is that a reference to the magic fairy tale transportation device?

I thought they did a fair job of speaking to that precisely, actually... as you can see from some example above. 




> I think I would put it a pre-nup, something loose anyway.
> 
> I think sex is somewhere in the deal of marriage, unless my memory is fuzzy.


It sounds like you want some kind of enforcement? Someone to make your spouse do what you feel that they ought? I guess from my point of view there already is. It's called divorce. Do what you ought or that is a deal breaker and I will divorce you.



> Of course, the woman can always just lie there and the man can make it a 2.5 second event. I get what you are saying - there is the "law" and then there is the "spirit of the law", which you can only deduce why the law was drafted.
> 
> The spirit of any sex-pre-nup (and I don't know why I/we are focusing on that - is that me  ) is to say, "I expect we will both have a healthy, loving sex life to nourish our bodies, minds, and souls and as expression of love."


I don't really understand why you would want to do that. I would think a simple conversation would suffice. What would you DO with a written prenup, wave it in your wife's face until she put out?

I don't know about your situation. But the fact is that most sexless marriages come about because of degradation of loving feelings; resentments, anger, other issues. It seems to me that a prenup isn't going to help solve these problems. As a matter of fact, regardless of WHAT the problem is, I don't see how a pre-nup is solutions focused at all. 



> It's not to spell out a "Sex Plan." (Oral Mondays, Doggie-Style Wednesdays). Although if the couple wants to. . .more power to them.


Again I don't see how a prenup helps with that. If someone does not want to have sex, a piece of paper is not going to change that.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I don't think pre-nups get discussed _here_ much, because most of us didn't get the memo before blissfully, and obliviously, sashaying off to the ball, only to later watch the fairy tale turn into a pumpkin.
> 
> Wanting the fairytale makes it very difficult to conceive of the pumpkin.


Do people REALLY get married as grown ups thinking marriage is all sunshine and light? Maybe we should make a minimum marriage age that is older than it is now.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

lol vthome, I couldn't agree with you more on each point.


----------



## takris (Sep 22, 2010)

It seems that pre-nups were once just for celebrities and the wealthy as a tool to deny the ex-wife/ex-husband this or that during a divorce, but now that I'm in middle age, I'm frequently hearing of my coworkers using these as part of a second marriage, especially in cases where each came into the marriage with drastically different financial pictures. I noticed pre-nup links as a recommended item to consider on our human resources website where I work, and an added item on a lawyer's billboard on the way to the office. 

It's one of those topics I'd have a hard time introducing, although my wife and I were married by a pastor that required us to list out all responsibilities and roles prior to marriage.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> What obligations? What obligations do you wish you had known more about? What are the *contractual* sexual *obligations*?
> 
> I don't think that there is any consensus on what these obligations ARE.


No, there is no general societal consenus. . .but I think the couple should reach a consensus on financial, parenting and sexual obligations.

Do you not feel that way?

Why don't you feel the couple reaching a consensus and committing to something is a healthy, preventative measure?



> My recollection of pre-cana included things like basic financial stuff. Nuts and bolts, how to make a budget. Pay the savings account first. Recognize the stress that tight finances can cause on a marriage. Recognize it for what it IS ... just a detail to be dealt with.
> 
> One segment had to do with remaining in love by spending time together, perhaps a bit of info there that might have been of use for you and your wife.I remember him talking about making time to be together and have fun. Don't allow excuses like money and time get in the way. Make snow angels together. It doesn't cost any money. You don't need a sitter...


Okay, you are the first one to mention this "nuts and bolts/basic stuff". I thought Pre-Cana was 6 months of classes.

Surely it covered more than "save for the future"? I mean, I don't want to discount very basic advice can be very, very wise and living hand to mouth is surely a recipe for marital stress.




> I don't know what the pumpkin is. Is that a reference to the magic fairy tale transportation device?
> 
> I thought they did a fair job of speaking to that precisely, actually... as you can see from some example above.


If that was a 1 or 2 hour class, then that was good. Is that all Pre-Cana is? I am frankly not sure so I can't speak critically of it, not having experienced it. I am only going off what other posters have said - it was a waste of time (including my friends in a very happy marriage so it wasn't all just marital losers).



> It sounds like you want some kind of enforcement?


EHHHNNNNNTTT!!!!! WRONG!

I want some kind of understanding!!!! I am not sure unless something is written down and signed if there is really understanding.



> Someone to make your spouse do what you feel that they ought?


No, it's about reaching consensus. . .like you noted.



> I guess from my point of view there already is. It's called divorce. Do what you ought or that is a deal breaker and I will divorce you.


Well, that's the controversial "exit clause" - the ol' advice "Start planning your marriage with your divorce in mind."

It's either that or have marriage occur in 2, 5, or 10 year "terms" which expire for contractual renewal 






> I don't really understand why you would want to do that. I would think a simple conversation would suffice. What would you DO with a written prenup, wave it in your wife's face until she put out?


Yeah, I would stand naked in front of the bed with a woody and wave it and say, "I'm dying here!" LOL.

No, the idea is back to generating an understanding (again, I am not sure why we are focusing on sex. . .well, it does always have triple the viewers at this forum).



> I don't know about your situation. But the fact is that most sexless marriages come about because of degradation of loving feelings; resentments, anger, other issues. It seems to me that a prenup isn't going to help solve these problems. As a matter of fact, regardless of WHAT the problem is, I don't see how a pre-nup is solutions focused at all.


I would say a lot of anger develops in couples (or one spouse) because of a failure to meet expectations. Misunderstandings. The more misunderstandings are avoided, the greater chance of success and the lessor chance of divorce.

Are pre-nups a panacea? No, of course not. I don't see divorce dropping to 0. 

But perhaps State Laws should start making them mandatory for couples if churches/synagogues/temples aren't going to step up to the plate?

It kind of reminds me of the unwed child/abortion issue. The churches cry and cry about teenagers getting abortion and want it outlawed. But you want to know how many Catholics there are out there? About 20% of the population. Wanna know how many Catholic women elect for abortion during an unplanned pregnancy? About 20%. It appears our religious upbringing does little to influence matters.

Thus the pleas from the Church to our legislators to alter behavior.

It costs taxpayors a heck of a lot of dough to maintain and adjudicate family courts.



> Again I don't see how a prenup helps with that. If someone does not want to have sex, a piece of paper is not going to change that.


No, but a piece of paper would remind them of what the vision of a marriage was supposed to be in both of their eyes prior to signing, no?

Should not a marriage be treated like a Business? A vision statement? A mission statement? Goals? Plans? Daily Tasks?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Do people REALLY get married as grown ups thinking marriage is all sunshine and light? Maybe we should make a minimum marriage age that is older than it is now.


Are you kidding me? 

I was 34 and wife was 30, so which were we, too young or too stupid?

Nobody plans for 'bad'. Marriage is mostly marketing, and nobody wants to market the down-side of a product you want everyone to buy into. 

You don't imagine that the woman or man who beams when you walk into the room will eventually cringe when you walk into the room.

You don't imagine that the partner that blows you away sexually will eventually prefer blowing you off.

Seriously, why would you? And if you did - why in the hell would you go through with the marriage?

I would even go so far as to say, that as we were standing at the altar, and you were to make us gaze into a crystal ball, 10 years into the future and see what our lives will become - we simply would have rejected it as being not even remotely possible and got on with the nuptials and reception. 
The pre-nup IS the crystal ball, and people just don't want to look at it.

I'm sticking with the damn fairy tale analogies ... pumpkins, crystal balls, frogs, princes, and witches are all applicable.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> I'm sticking with the damn fairy tale analogies ... pumpkins, crystal balls, frogs, princes, and witches are all applicable.


I think I have the reputation as court jester here.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Are you kidding me?
> 
> I was 34 and wife was 30, so which were we, too young or too stupid?


Sorry I did not mean for it to come out as a dope slap! 




> Nobody plans for 'bad'. Marriage is mostly marketing, and nobody wants to market the down-side of a product you want everyone to buy into.


I would guess that your parents also did not have a successful marriage? I knew that marriage was not all sunshine and light from watching MY parents. They remained married until my father died young a few years ago. They argued. They made up. They had money problems. They solved them. They had sex. The door was locked.

I remember seeing the same patterns in many of the neighborhood families. You could feel the maturity, caring and responsibility emenating from those with good marriages. YOu could see the emphasis on cars, boats, cheating from the marriages that later split.




> You don't imagine that the woman or man who beams when you walk into the room will eventually cringe when you walk into the room.


Well you know that that does not always happen, right? Something brings people there. But some people DO plan for things to go wrong. They go to pre-cana. They go to communication classes. 



> Seriously, why would you? And if you did - why in the hell would you go through with the marriage?
> 
> I would even go so far as to say, that as we were standing at the altar, and you were to make us gaze into a crystal ball, 10 years into the future and see what our lives will become - we simply would have rejected it as being not even remotely possible and got on with the nuptials and reception.


Are you suggesting that a happy marriage is not even remotely possible? Am I reading that right? 

As I look BACK on the last 16 years to the day at the alter, I honestly did not have any idea how GOOD it could be. Even though it is often still very challenging at times, I had no idea how much one person could help me learn and grow. And how awesome it would be for me to be able to do the same. How rewarding building a family and a home together could be. 

There are a zillion reasons why a marriage can go wrong.You (one... not "you") could have accidentally chosen a partner who did not have the capacity to grow up. You could have emotional or psychological issues. You could just have done too much damage to each other before finally learning about things like love languages and healthy communication... 

But I had no idea that anyone thought marriage was anything but a challenging ride with a LOT of hard work.



> The pre-nup IS the crystal ball, and people just don't want to look at it.
> 
> I'm sticking with the damn fairy tale analogies ... pumpkins, crystal balls, frogs, princes, and witches are all applicable.


SO you write a crystal ball that says.... what, exactly? When you get cold and cringe when I come in the room I am going to wag my prenup at you? How does that solve whatever problem arose to cause her to cringe when you came in the room? 

That sounds like someone who does not want to face whatever mistakes were made and learn from them. That is too bad since it makes it likely that they will be repeated.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I think we're using circular logic here. We actually aren't all that far apart in terms of beliefs.

If you are sitting on the sh!t end of the stick (don't know if that's in a fairy tale) of a failed marriage - a pre-nup looks like a stroke of genius. It means that both parties have weighed the possibility of negative outcomes in their marriage, and they acknowledge the events or consequences to those outcomes. 

Nope. I'm not saying that a happy marriage isn't even remotely possible. I'm saying that at the time you say 'I do', most people would be hard pressed to imagine that an unhappy marriage is remotely possible.

Anyone can acknowledge that marriage will be hard work. But the reality is, exactly as you point out, you don't know what that hard work is going to be, until you are confronted with it. That is when your mettle is tested, and quite simply, many people are neither as loving, or resolute, as they believe themselves to be when they make that oath.

As an aside, I still want 'happily ever after', I'm just not sure I need a princess to get there. And if by some strange chance I do find that princess - I will most assuredly take steps to protect my land and vassals. I wish I had some henchmen though. Henchmen would be cool ...


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> SO you write a crystal ball that says.... what, exactly?


A vision. A mission. goals. plans. daily tasks (obligations).



> When you get cold and cringe when I come in the room I am going to wag my prenup at you? How does that solve whatever problem arose to cause her to cringe when you came in the room?


Well, it does offer any counselor a reference point about what understandings/agreement was had prior to a marriage.

No?

I mean, wouldn't it be wonderful, even if it was "pie in the sky" to see what a young couple planned and dreamed for prior to tieing the knot? Seeing their vision?

Then when a marriage was on the rocks, a counselor could read it and see what both of their visions were and why they aren't there and make a diagnosis that is more correct?



> That sounds like someone who does not want to face whatever mistakes were made and learn from them. That is too bad since it makes it likely that they will be repeated.


I think that's an incorrect statement/dig at Deejo/myself. I think we are trying to prevent a repeat of what happened to us.

A person who just jumped into another marriage without a prenup to me smacks of making another mistake.

I am not sure why, you as a woman, are seeing this as some kind of compulsatory action on the part of the male upon female. This runs both ways - the male has obligations too. I would want to see what the expectations were of me and if I couldn't live up to them, well, then, I wouldn't marry her, you know?

BTW, some demographics for you:

1. We were married at 25. Too young or Too Stupid?
2. Both of our parents were happily married and other than 1 marriage in my neighborhood, we both had good models to emulate.
3. Both of us faithful (I think).

I will say there was a lot of misunderstandings and unfulfilled expectations in my marriage. I wish we could have talked about it more. Maybe that was my fault. I accept responsibility for not getting a pre-nup about what exactly she expected out of marriage and a husband.

I certainly didn't plan or want to let her down.

But you are right - divorce solves all of that. That's what my attorney tells me - "She is free to pursue that." (that being whatever she was missing)


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I think we're using circular logic here. We actually aren't all that far apart in terms of beliefs.
> 
> If you are sitting on the sh!t end of the stick (don't know if that's in a fairy tale) of a failed marriage - a pre-nup looks like a stroke of genius. It means that both parties have weighed the possibility of negative outcomes in their marriage, and they acknowledge the events or consequences to those outcomes.


Like a conversation starter? Lord knows DH and I have written memos to each other recapping our understanding of a conversation that has taken place and to prevent weird memory lapses (usually mine). So if you are talking a conversation starter and recording type thing, I can't think of anything wrong with THAT. I might even break it out every now and then and say hey I don't really agree with this anymore. 


> Nope. I'm not saying that a happy marriage isn't even remotely possible. I'm saying that at the time you say 'I do', most people would be hard pressed to imagine that an unhappy marriage is remotely possible.


WOW that strikes me as more than a little strange since the statistics around marriage failure are readily available. Most people have SEEN marriages end many times in their lifetime.



> Anyone can acknowledge that marriage will be hard work. But the reality is, exactly as you point out, you don't know what that hard work is going to be, until you are confronted with it. That is when your mettle is tested, and quite simply, many people are neither as loving, or resolute, as they believe themselves to be when they make that oath.
> 
> As an aside, I still want 'happily ever after', I'm just not sure I need a princess to get there. And if by some strange chance I do find that princess - I will most assuredly take steps to protect my land and vassals. I wish I had some henchmen though. Henchmen would be cool ...


We all want henchmen. THAT is universal.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Scannerguard said:


> A vision. A mission. goals. plans. daily tasks (obligations).


I cannot for the life of me imagine living that way. But if works for you, and you can find someone else that speaks to, rock on.


> Well, it does offer any counselor a reference point about what understandings/agreement was had prior to a marriage.
> 
> No?


No. Marriage counselors don't work that way. LOADS of people go into marriage counseling so that the counselor can get their spouse to see how wrong they are. It does not work that way. 

Counselors teach people how to communicate, identify their internal issues, fight fairly, find strength within themselves. They don't arbitrate who is or is not meeting contractual "obligations."





> I mean, wouldn't it be wonderful, even if it was "pie in the sky" to see what a young couple planned and dreamed for prior to tieing the knot? Seeing their vision?


I can remember my vision. It cracks me up with its wild naivete! 





> Then when a marriage was on the rocks, a counselor could read it and see what both of their visions were and why they aren't there and make a diagnosis that is more correct?


I would think that their current vision, feelings, situation would be far more relevant than whatever was on their mind then.




> I think that's an incorrect statement/dig at Deejo/myself. I think we are trying to prevent a repeat of what happened to us.


From what I am reading, his and your viewpoints are not all that similar. I was not trying to dig at Deejo. 

It depends what repeat you want to avoid. If you want to avoid being financially taken to the cleaners by another gold digger (don't know your scene all that much), then by all means, make a financial pre-nup. But if you want to not repeat a failed marriage and all the emotional pain and heartache that that caused, then it seems considerably more likely that you need to learn what you did wrong. Learn what she did wrong and how to not wind up with another person like that. Learn how to communicate. Learn love languages. 

Because I am not thinking that anyone is going to be motivated to change themselves based on an obligation written in a document from some time in the past.



> I am not sure why, you as a woman, are seeing this as some kind of compulsatory action on the part of the male upon female.


When did I say THAT?!? I would not want to obligate my husband to me! Yuck! He LOVES me. He tries to please me because he loves me. I try to please him because I love him. Because of getting some good online advice about not being an ******* anymore, we now know how to meet each others' needs, stop building resentment, show our love and commitment. We don't NEED to be obligated. I would rather see him happy without me than obligated to me.




> I will say there was a lot of misunderstandings and unfulfilled expectations in my marriage. I wish we could have talked about it more. Maybe that was my fault. I accept responsibility for not getting a pre-nup about what exactly she expected out of marriage and a husband.
> 
> I certainly didn't plan or want to let her down.
> 
> But you are right - divorce solves all of that. That's what my attorney tells me - "She is free to pursue that." (that being whatever she was missing)


You never know how things are going to change. I am hopeful that I will never need to look back on a failed marriage. But if I did, I would not be looking to figure out how to lay out a suitably iron clad contract. I would be looking at those misunderstandings, the failure to communicate, the ways you let each other down.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> Re: Why aren't Prenuptial Agreements talked about here much?
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


LOL. . .so the dig is only at me. Okay. . .fine.

I am not saying a pre-nup is an iron-clad contract. I am not sure why you are extrapolating that from my writings.

I am saying it is a vision statement if nothing else. But hey, if you think marriage is working just fine as it is - man sees woman, woman sees man, they fall in love, and go through life by the seat of their pants, that's fine too.

(Hey, if you are going to mischaracterize my position, then turnabout is fair play)

Know this though, even though I say it, I cringe everytime I give the advice of "You should go through counseling." 

Why do I cringe?

Because marriage therapists have about the success rate as do witch doctors. I don't mean that to demean a very honest and caring profession. I know their intentions are very honorable and they have to wade through drama, day after day.

It's just that the success rate is abysmal with treatment and prevention as it stands right now. I think any honest therapist would admit this.

So I think we need to examine marriage a little better and more honestly and try to prevent misunderstandings, while yes, allowing some fluidity as the couple grows older.

I'd even say once in awhile it would be okay for the spouse to say, 

"You know what? We reached the maximum this week on sex . . .but what the hell, you only live once! I'm in a generous mood. Coming upstairs or not?"


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Scanner,
I don't think a piece of paper that details out how often a couple will have sex is useful at all. If a person doesn't want to have sex a white sheet with words on it isn't going to make them think "oh dang, forgot about that". I would tend to think it would make them more resentful, man or woman. This is coming from a woman who has a HIGHER sex drive than her husband. I think he would be really upset if I told him he signed a document, now make it happen. As for me, I wouldn't want to have sex with him because of some legal agreement knowing it was only out of duty or fear of loosing half. 
I see where you are coming from in your own situation and I appreciate your thoughts on this. I do think that you are on the right track with pre-marriage counseling being way more of a necessity than it currently is. Now, having said that....it isn't in the beginning of the marriage that suffers. Life is bliss with unicorns and rainbows shooting out of our ass. It is in the middle that I think counseling needs to be available. Kind of a "re-tuning" if you will. The church could write the contract of sort of "you get married here and in 5 years you need to come back for 6 more months of marriage counseling. Then again in 5 years. So on and so forth. I think alot could be helped by this.


----------



## greeneyeddolphin (May 31, 2010)

Scannerguard said:


> LOL. . .so the dig is only at me. Okay. . .fine.
> 
> I am not saying a pre-nup is an iron-clad contract. I am not sure why you are extrapolating that from my writings.
> 
> ...


I agree that marriage, as it happens now, often doesn't work out the way we expect. But I don't think a piece of paper stipulating what must be done and how it must be done will fix that. I think that will create more problems as partners feel constrained to exactly follow that piece of paper that may or may not fit the situation. And some situations must be dealt with as they happen, and can't wait while you hammer out an agreement in writing and get it signed and notarized. If my kid suddenly needs a kidney transplant, and oops we forgot to cover that, I'm not going to let my kid suffer while his dad and I figure out how we want to handle it and get it put in writing. 

I think what needs to be done is for couples to discuss things more thoroughly before they get married. If you google "questions for your boyfriend/girlfriend" or even just "communication in romantic relationships", there are oodles of sites that come up that will even give you a jumping off point for questions to ask someone before you marry them. Covers tons of stuff, from finances to kids to sex. I think discussing these things, and figuring out each person's ideal for them, and then finding that compromise is what needs to happen. And if they find they can't or aren't willing to compromise on something, that's when you admit it won't work and simply don't marry. Too many people think that getting marriage will make that fundamental disagreement just disappear, they don't realize that not only does it not disappear, but in fact becomes bigger and bigger until the marriage fails. 

I think people should put more thought into what they think a marriage should be like and look around at the examples around them. As I mentioned in a previous post, I went into my first marriage using my parents as my role models. Of course, they always fought quietly in their bedroom, never letting on to me that they ever fought. So, I went into my first marriage not realizing (and of course, had many failed relationships because I took an argument as the end of the relationship, since I'd never realized that you could fight and still love each other and be together) that we would fight and argue. There were other things that contributed, and I think did so in much greater part, to the demise of my marriage, but I do think that not knowing how to handle confrontation and conflict didn't help, and thinking that we'd never fight certainly didn't help. 

But having a prenup wouldn't have helped us with that either. Since fighting wasn't something I thought about, I wouldn't have thought to include it in the prenup. What would have helped is someone sitting down with me ahead of time and saying, "Look, we know you think marriage is a fairy tale. And parts of it are. But let me tell you, there's also this, and this, and this, and oh, don't forget this." 

The one good thing that came from my divorce was that people talked to me honestly about marriage and relationships, and I learned a lot about what I wanted and didn't want. And now, with my boyfriend, our relationship is so much better than it would be if I hadn't figured out all this stuff. I know now that we can argue and disagree and it doesn't mean we love each other any less. I know that we can compromise, and it doesn't always have to be my way or his way. I also know that our relationship isn't going to just take care of itself, that we have to talk and work at it and can't ignore it and think it's going to all work itself out. 

A prenup wouldn't help with any of that either. I guess my long, rambling point is that it's not so much that people need to hammer out an agreement in writing, but that they need to simply discuss things before they get married, and maybe even before they get into a relationship at all. 

Hey, better idea than a prenup...in conjuction with any sex ed or health courses in middle and high school, a course on relationships and marriage and what they are really like, what to expect and what you can/should do.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Scannerguard said:


> No, there is no general societal consenus. . .but I think the couple should reach a consensus on financial, parenting and sexual obligations.
> 
> Do you not feel that way?


Not really, no. There are two things that don't work for me about that. I think it is FAR more valuable to learn the skills necessary to achieve agreement. (Small side note... Slight differentiation but I don't think consensus is necessary if acceptance can be achieved. For example, I am never going to agree with DH that riling up the kids immediately before bed kis a good idea. But I am willing to accept that he wants do to do it.) But anyway, the value in identifying agreement at one single point in time is no where NEAR as valuable as the developing the skill to communicate and agree to things. People's views on what they want and need or think about things changes over time. 

Also I guess I am less concerned that obligation than you are. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you need by obligation. I don't know what a sexual obligation would be. I feel less OBLIGED and more desirous for a mutually satisfying sex life. If I felt that DH was meeting some obligation that would lessen my satisfaction dramatically. If I felt obligated I think I would wind up resentful.

As for parenting, what I think of as useful to agree on and discuss in advance are general philosophical and value issues. For instance we discussed, and continue to discuss, the importance of effective non-permissive discipline strategy that is also positive, constructive making use of cooperation building, character building etcetera. The importance of a good quality education that educates the whole child, not just targetting the three Rs... blah dee blah. So I can't quite see how obligation fits there. 

[/quote]

Why don't you feel the couple reaching a consensus and committing to something is a healthy, preventative measure?


> I guess the thing that makes most sense to commit to is to try always to work together to solve problems, to learn skills to be effective, to try always to be loving, caring and understanding. Beyond that, committing to specifics seems a recipe for disappointment. People's view of what they want and need are going to change as they learn, grow and develop.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

OK, I haven't read the replies. But I will say, from the perspective of 50, I sure wouldn't want to be bound for life to a contract like the pre-nups you outline. People change--a LOT--as you grow older. 

Now, if there is an easy way to revise a pre-nup, as needed (and assuming the revision will be a mutually agreed upon compromise), then maybe it wouldn't be so bad.

BUT--would you want to be working at 50 under the exact same contract you signed at 25? Probably not!


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I had posted this in another thread, and thought it would be appropriate here, if for no other reason than to make it clear that guys are not the only ones who feel cynical or skeptical following the end of a marriage.



> I have been reading "COMMITTED: A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage" by Elizabeth Gilbert. The very same lady currently being portrayed by Julia Roberts in "Eat, Pray, Love", co-starring Anton Shigur as her lover in a theater near you.
> 
> The lady has a great writing style, and I highly recommend the book.
> 
> ...


In thinking about this more, I don't think it's possible to bridge the schism between those that may wish to entertain a second marriage and believe that this makes perfect sense, versus those that have not experienced the emotional gauntlet of divorce. And quite sincerely, I hope you don't.

Marriage is a contract that by it's nature is restrictive - but we don't think of it that way. Quite the contrary, we focus on the benefits. A prenuptial agreement is a contract too. It does seem odd that it generally seems frowned upon when it's intent is to codify the ramifications of the much larger but far more vague, contract of marriage.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Scannerguard said:


> I am not saying a pre-nup is an iron-clad contract. I am not sure why you are extrapolating that from my writings.


I don't. We are clearly having a failure to communicate here.

I don't see the value in laying out "daily task", or any of the examples you mentioned, expectations compared to leaning how to communicate. Once the expectations CHANGE, your understanding needs to change. 



> I am saying it is a vision statement if nothing else. But hey, if you think marriage is working just fine as it is - man sees woman, woman sees man, they fall in love, and go through life by the seat of their pants, that's fine too.


I guess we are having a REAL failure to communicate. You see all marriages as operating the way yours was. To assume that everyone goes through marriage the way you did... by the seat of your pants.

Sister, married over 20 years now, communication classes. Reading books on communication, love languages. Going to the doctor when time changes the libido. Weight watchers to improve self confidence and bring some zing back to the marriage.

Mom and Dad married over 50 years, truly 'til death do you part. Learning to negotiate. Learning to fight fair.

DH and I, married 16 years and happier now than every before. I get ass handed to me on an advice board for precisely holding ON to my expectations instead of learning to ACCEPT him for who he is. We are learning how to listen to each other, learn each other's love languages. It is HARD. DHs love language is touch, which is not mine at all. I have to put effort into it to make a habit of it.


> (Hey, if you are going to mischaracterize my position, then turnabout is fair play)


You know! I am not trying to mischaracterize. Communication is a two way street. What is SAID and what is HEARD. 




> Know this though, even though I say it, I cringe everytime I give the advice of "You should go through counseling."
> 
> Why do I cringe?
> 
> Because marriage therapists have about the success rate as do witch doctors. I don't mean that to demean a very honest and caring profession. I know their intentions are very honorable and they have to wade through drama, day after day.


Well you are doing one better than I! There are a TON of NOT caring therapists out there. They don't want you to solve your problem because then they will have to stop billing you! But even among the caring and honest ones, they are ineffective.

One reason I suspect is that people wait until things are SOOOOO bad, and so much resentment is built. If you wait to long to address, then the issues actually become confused. You might not even really understand WHY you are unhappy or WHAT really happened.




> It's just that the success rate is abysmal with treatment and prevention as it stands right now. I think any honest therapist would admit this.
> 
> So I think we need to examine marriage a little better and more honestly and try to prevent misunderstandings, while yes, allowing some fluidity as the couple grows older.
> 
> ...


Oh God. If I had to live with a numerical constraint on sex, I wouldn't bother being married. I would stick with the Hitachi.

The other group I used to belong to back in the bad old days of my marriage had this topic come up a lot. There were a lot of men who did not understand that they were killing their women's sex interest with OTHER things that were going on it life. (To be fair, there were plenty of women who were frustrated by inadequate sex but they did not tend to see it as an obligation which was not being met.) The idea that sex is an obligation is so damned icky.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

atruckersgirl said:


> I think what needs to be done is for couples to discuss things more thoroughly before they get married. If you google "questions for your boyfriend/girlfriend" or even just "communication in romantic relationships", there are oodles of sites that come up that will even give you a jumping off point for questions to ask someone before you marry them. Covers tons of stuff, from finances to kids to sex. I think discussing these things, and figuring out each person's ideal for them, and then finding that compromise is what needs to happen.
> 
> And if they find they can't or aren't willing to compromise on something, that's when you admit it won't work and simply don't marry. Too many people think that getting marriage will make that fundamental disagreement just disappear, they don't realize that not only does it not disappear, but in fact becomes bigger and bigger until the marriage fails.


I am so agreeing with you here atruckersgirl.



> The one good thing that came from my divorce was that people talked to me honestly about marriage and relationships, and I learned a lot about what I wanted and didn't want. And now, with my boyfriend, our relationship is so much better than it would be if I hadn't figured out all this stuff.


I think this is the one thing that can come out GOOD about a failed marriage. LEARNING. My brother is an example of a failed marriage that gave him a solid education in what not to do next time. And if you can at least get that, you are ahead of the game. But I have some friends who just so keep blaming the other guy and insisting on how right they were. No learning achieved. Right fighters have the hardest time in marriage. (I know! I used to BE one!)




> I know now that we can argue and disagree and it doesn't mean we love each other any less. I know that we can compromise, and it doesn't always have to be my way or his way.


Hardest lesson I ever learned that has yielded the most benefit is that I don't have to agree with something to recognize it is important to him. I don't have to be RIGHT.



> Hey, better idea than a prenup...in conjuction with any sex ed or health courses in middle and high school, a course on relationships and marriage and what they are really like, what to expect and what you can/should do.


The problem with this is... WHO would give it and what would be in it?


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I had posted this in another thread, and thought it would be appropriate here, if for no other reason than to make it clear that guys are not the only ones who feel cynical or skeptical following the end of a marriage.


Of course not. If I am responsible for making it sound like a gender issue, it was not my intent. 



> In thinking about this more, I don't think it's possible to bridge the schism between those that may wish to entertain a second marriage and believe that this makes perfect sense, versus those that have not experienced the emotional gauntlet of divorce. And quite sincerely, I hope you don't.
> 
> Marriage is a contract that by it's nature is restrictive - but we don't think of it that way. Quite the contrary, we focus on the benefits. A prenuptial agreement is a contract too. It does seem odd that it generally seems frowned upon when it's intent is to codify the ramifications of the much larger but far more vague, contract of marriage.


Frown ... no frown... I think it is not likely to be EFFECTIVE at solving the kinds of problems marriages have. If I thought it would, I would be grinning about it all the way to the lawyer.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I just think you are fundamentally missing the perspective that I, and SG seem to share - and that's fine.

It isn't meant to solve problems in a marriage. It isn't even meant to address problems in a marriage. 

It sets expectations. And if you are one of those people that are expectation averse (my ex was, she didn't want to be boxed in, or nailed down to anything) then it still benefits both parties.

A prenuptial agreement is going to benefit the parties if both are bringing substantial assets - or liabilities for that matter, to the matrimonial table. A pre-nup would have benefited my brother prior to marrying his spouse whom he later discovered had over 100K in debt. She neglected to share that tidbit while winning over his heart ...
Thanks to the laws of the Commonwealth, the moment he said 'I do' he inherited half of it when the marriage tanks. I pointedly did not say 'if' the marriage tanks.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I just think you are fundamentally missing the perspective that I, and SG seem to share - and that's fine.


Very likely. I think we both bring different perspectives to the conversation. You have an ability to see some things that don't work, from your perspective. But having lived in a miserable, near divorce marriage and changing it into a very happy marriage, I have some perspectives on what does and what don't work.

And I am enjoying the conversation!




> It isn't meant to solve problems in a marriage. It isn't even meant to address problems in a marriage.
> 
> It sets expectations. And if you are one of those people that are expectation averse (my ex was, she didn't want to be boxed in, or nailed down to anything) then it still benefits both parties.


But expectations CHANGE. THAT is gonna be a problem that needs solving regardless of what expectations you start with. Being able to understand and express expectations as an ongoing SKILL that you carry through the rest of your lives is way more important than the one instance of setting them at the beginning. In my opinion.

You can level set a customer service agreement. You can level set a management/employee relationship. I don't think you can level set a dynamic interpersonal relationship. 

The exercise might be a good idea as a means of learning the skill, or perhaps in your case identifying that your wife and you might have been incompatible based on differing manners of handling expectations... whatever. 



> A prenuptial agreement is going to benefit the parties if both are bringing substantial assets - or liabilities for that matter, to the matrimonial table.


OK wait. I have no objection to the notion of protecting assets. I have been speaking almost entirely to Scannerguards notion that it is going level set expectations on daily chores, sex, parenting and the like. I feel very strongly, particularly until such time as our antiquated divorce laws catch up to reality, that people have a right to protect their assets.

I guess I just wasn't very clear. We've been talking in circles after all.


----------



## moogvo (Dec 21, 2008)

Contracts are for businesses. Plain and simple.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

moogvo said:


> Contracts are for businesses. Plain and simple.


moogvo, I get the substance of what you are saying, but not sure of your opinion. Are you saying that marriage isn't a contract?

A contract lays out the terms and expectations for performance regarding the parties to a transaction. Marriage is probably the most substantial, influential, and far-reaching transaction that anyone can engage in. You don't agree, or you don't like the terms it's framed in?

My bottom line is, that right now - I can't imagine remarrying. But should I ever decide to, I can't imagine remarrying without a pre-nup.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

moogvo said:


> Contracts are for businesses. Plain and simple.


Civil marriage IS business. It is a legal agreement with regard to the care of offspring and the use of assets as well as survivor ship rights and the like. All packaged in an extra value meal type box.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Vthomeschoolmom and I agree on one point:

Marriage is a business.

If you have any doubt, go down to your local family court and sit as a spectator in divorce proceedings?

Think the judge cares about communication drama, fidelty, infidelty, etc?

They just see it as the final business tranaction, a dissolving business.

Soooooo.. . .it' begs the question.

If it is a business, then what kind of a knucklehead enters a business partnership without a partnership agreement? Vthomeschoolmom, you and I are going to start a corner Mom n' Pop Store.

I"m Pop. You're Mom.

You cool with us just getting together and just working things out as they go along?

Hey, I got a good place down the street here. I'll handle the finances. You handle the register. Sound like fun?

And you know what? I see a lot of people do that with business!!! Mom and Pop like each other.

I mean. . .what could possibly go wrong?

And then, at the end, the attorney is sitting there with "Mom" saying, "Well, didn't you get a partnership agreement? What can I refer to here?"

"Um, we didn't feel contracts were necessary. I learned the Love Languages and Pop wouldn't learn the Love Languages."

ATTORNEY: Huh?

No, Vthomeshoolmom. . .becuase you do respect each other, all the more reason that contracts are necessary!!!!

You all seem to be hung up (and this is probably my doing by my insistence a vision statement gets produced) on the fact you could be "held" to a clause or something that was written 25 years ago.

First of all, contracts can be worded to be fluid. Second of all, in case you didn't know, no contract can change the fact that all assets and liabilities you obtain after the nuptials are exchanged, are the property of the marriage. So, it's 50/50 after the nuptials. And even after awhile, usually pre-nuptial property becomes "transmutated" (a complicated term I have learned about during my divorce.). Third, contracts can be amended or they can even have terms (5 years, 10 years, 20 years). When your contract is up, you can revisit matters.

How much better would we all be at marriage if you knew your contract was up for renewal in 6 months?

We'd all be like kids in December, knowing Santa is right around the corner. (and like kids in January after Santa has come  )

I get what you are saying.

You are saying, "Well, Mom and Pop should have all of the skills to adapt to every situation and work it out."

Well, like my boneheaded marriage therapist asked of us, "Why can't you work it out?" 

"Well, if we knew that, we wouldn't be here."

Anyway, at the end, I did basically corner her on her expectations of me and when I realized I couldn't live up to them, that was part of the reason I left. I just think a lot of heartache could have been avoided.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Scannerguard said:


> If it is a business, then what kind of a knucklehead enters a business partnership without a partnership agreement? Vthomeschoolmom, you and I are going to start a corner Mom n' Pop Store.


Note that I said CIVIL marriage. And civil marriage basically is a prepackaged set of agreements. You get a certain set of rights. Survivorship rights. The right to file taxes together. The right to raise your kids without interference from the state, the right to share assets....

When the contract is terminated, these rights evaporate.


But most of us when speaking of marriage in a forum such as this are not speaking ONLY of the civil contract. The civil contract does not give you a right to sex, for instance, as many rape cases have shown. It only gives you the right to terminate the civil contract in the cause of sexual abandonment which nowadays is largely moot since most states (all states?) offer no fault divorce.

Most of us think of marriage also as partnership, love, intimacy...

The only remedy for not meeting contractual obligations wrt to the civil marital is to terminate the contract.... 



> I"m Pop. You're Mom.
> 
> You cool with us just getting together and just working things out as they go along?


No. I already have a Pop. We seem to be doing just fine, thanks! 



> Hey, I got a good place down the street here. I'll handle the finances. You handle the register. Sound like fun?


Right up until you demonstrate you suck at the finances or I break my legs and can't stand at the register. Or I decide I want to go into childcare instead. 


> "Um, we didn't feel contracts were necessary. I learned the Love Languages and Pop wouldn't learn the Love Languages."


So when I don't feel like doing the register anymore, what did that get you? Divorce me. Oh yah, you can already do that with a no fault divorce.



> You all seem to be hung up (and this is probably my doing by my insistence a vision statement gets produced) on the fact you could be "held" to a clause or something that was written 25 years ago.


Not at all. I work HARD to MEET my obligations to my husband. I have told you my philisophical objection a bunch of times, but I will repeat once more.

It won't work to solve any marital problems. 

Not sure why you object to learning to communicate, love, listen, learn. Too hard perhaps.


----------

