Hi!

I am final year journalism student doing a feature on prenups. I am looking
for men/women who have signed or are thinking about signing a prenup
agreement, or people who have refused to sign a prenup, who wouldn;t mind
answering a few questions It would take 10 mins of your time, and would make
me a very happy person!

Thanks

Kelly

"kellya" <kellya@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
news:3f7869cb$1_3@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com... Hi! I am final year journalism student doing a feature on prenups. I am
looking for men/women who have signed or are thinking about signing a prenup agreement, or people who have refused to sign a prenup, who wouldn;t mind answering a few questions It would take 10 mins of your time, and would
make me a very happy person! Thanks Kelly
No, a prenup to me seems like a divorce plan and it thats the case why get
married.

"Archer" <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote in message
news:phidnUZYTp4QAuWiXTWJiw@giganews.com... "kellya" <kellya@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message news:3f7869cb$1_3@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com... Hi! I am final year journalism student doing a feature on prenups. I am looking for men/women who have signed or are thinking about signing a prenup agreement, or people who have refused to sign a prenup, who wouldn;t
mind answering a few questions It would take 10 mins of your time, and would make me a very happy person! Thanks Kelly No, a prenup to me seems like a divorce plan and it thats the case why get married.

The only people that say what you just said are people that do not have
substantial assets.

Kind of like the only people that say that money isn't important or money is
the root of all evil are the one's without any.

In today's world, if you have substantial assets, and you understand the
fact that divorce does not have the social stigma that it once did and
therefore becomes the solution to a marital problem a little more easily
than a good while ago, then you do what is wise and prudent unless you want
someone else possibly taking one-half of everything that YOU worked for and
which they contributed nothing towards.

Can you imagine if your parents left you a million dollars and the next year
you got married to a wonderful man/woman and then the next year or so a
divorce happened and they took one-half of your million dollars? Fair? I
don't think so.

rg

"rg" <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:
Can you imagine if your parents left you a million dollars and the next yearyou got married to a wonderful man/woman and then the next year or so adivorce happened and they took one-half of your million dollars? Fair? Idon't think so.

Inheritances are separate property. So is property owned at the start
of the marriage. That doesn't stop a judge from awarding some or all
of it to the other spouse, however, especially if the loser is male.

I signed one in the first marriage. It hurt my feelings that he asked, but I
did it anyway. However, it turned out to be a moot point, since we put in a
clause that the pre-nup was void upon the marriage producing a child. I still
chose to walk away with only 10% of the assets, because I just wanted *out*.

My DH didn't ask for one, and I would have refused to marry him if he had. If
I'd had greater assets, I would not have asked for one, either. In fact, even
though he had significantly greater assets than I, but he made sure that every
asset that was in his name alone before the marriage was transferred to both of
our names.

To us, marriage is a merging. Withholding financial resources would have felt
as wrong as withholding emotional resources. I know other couples where
finances are kept completely separate, and if both partners are happy with
that, that's fine. We wouldn't have been.

Sheila

"Larry Kessler" <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote in message
news:dephnvohstp9grrgg992v7kmnorre7r70e@4ax.com... "rg" <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you imagine if your parents left you a million dollars and the next
yearyou got married to a wonderful man/woman and then the next year or so adivorce happened and they took one-half of your million dollars? Fair?
Idon't think so. Inheritances are separate property. So is property owned at the start of the marriage. That doesn't stop a judge from awarding some or all of it to the other spouse, however, especially if the loser is male.

In the great state of Texas, even inheritances are considered community
property unless documentation can be clearly established otherwise.

But non-inherited assets are not protected, even with documentation, unless
prenups are signed.

rg

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030929223150.12041.00000054@mb-m03.aol.com... I signed one in the first marriage. It hurt my feelings that he asked,
but I did it anyway. However, it turned out to be a moot point, since we put in
a clause that the pre-nup was void upon the marriage producing a child. I
still chose to walk away with only 10% of the assets, because I just wanted
*out*. My DH didn't ask for one, and I would have refused to marry him if he had.
If I'd had greater assets, I would not have asked for one, either. In fact,
even though he had significantly greater assets than I, but he made sure that
every asset that was in his name alone before the marriage was transferred to
both of our names. To us, marriage is a merging. Withholding financial resources would have
felt as wrong as withholding emotional resources. I know other couples where finances are kept completely separate, and if both partners are happy with that, that's fine. We wouldn't have been. Sheila

I would be willing to bet you money that if you had substantial assets, say
in the 2-5 million dollar range or more, and you were getting married to a
man that had very little, that you would have him sign a prenup.

You can so no when you don't have that but trust me...if you did...you
would. I know.

rg

>I would be willing to bet you money that if you had substantial assets, sayin the 2-5 million dollar range or more, and you were getting married to aman that had very little, that you would have him sign a prenup.You can so no when you don't have that but trust me...if you did...youwould. I know.rg

Ummm hmm. I'm sure you would. ;-)

But, you don't know me. See, if I wanted to sign a pre-nup, I simply wouldn't
get married.

Sheila

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030930062653.17462.00000033@mb-m26.aol.com...I would be willing to bet you money that if you had substantial assets,
sayin the 2-5 million dollar range or more, and you were getting married to
aman that had very little, that you would have him sign a prenup.You can so no when you don't have that but trust me...if you did...youwould. I know.rg Ummm hmm. I'm sure you would. ;-) But, you don't know me. See, if I wanted to sign a pre-nup, I simply
wouldn't get married. Sheila

So if you fell in love with a multi-millionaire, and he could not get
married without you signing a prenup, his legal advisors will make sure he
understands exactly why that is necessary, then you are saying that you

simply wouldn't get married?

And I am telling you, that if YOU were the multi-millionaire and you were in
love with someone and you both wanted to get married, YOU would require the
prenup.

It is easy and common for people without those assets to think that "love"
will conquer all and that a prenup is not important and is some kind of
antithesis to love. And I am telling you to trust me on this one, that when
you do have that kind of money that you will have advisors that make sure
you understand this in the most clear terms and a reasonable person will
require a prenup be signed before marrying someone.

If you or Tony want to believe differently, then you can go ahead and live
in your personal illusion.

I know differently; not believe.......know.

Enough.

rg

If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called
for, she is not honest, period.

i

In article <dephnvohstp9grrgg992v7kmnorre7r70e@4ax.com>, Larry Kessler wrote: "rg" <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:Can you imagine if your parents left you a million dollars and the next yearyou got married to a wonderful man/woman and then the next year or so adivorce happened and they took one-half of your million dollars? Fair? Idon't think so. Inheritances are separate property. So is property owned at the start of the marriage. That doesn't stop a judge from awarding some or all of it to the other spouse, however, especially if the loser is male.

"rg" <jobahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2Keeb.3600$ZE.1120@twister.austin.rr.com...

[] And I am telling you, that if YOU were the multi-millionaire and you were
in love with someone and you both wanted to get married, YOU would require
the prenup. It is easy and common for people without those assets to think that "love" will conquer all and that a prenup is not important and is some kind of antithesis to love. And I am telling you to trust me on this one, that
when you do have that kind of money that you will have advisors that make sure you understand this in the most clear terms and a reasonable person will require a prenup be signed before marrying someone.
[]

It is not reasonable to make blanket statements like this. People are
individuals. My assets are not currently worth over a million dollars, but
they were at one point. I have experienced being that rich and I would have
felt the same way about a pre-nup then that I do now. To me, it is getting
married while planning to get divorced and I would not do it. It violates
my most basic beliefs about marriage and I put my principles before my
money.

Jayne

> > No, a prenup to me seems like a divorce plan and it thats the case why
get married. The only people that say what you just said are people that do not have substantial assets. Kind of like the only people that say that money isn't important or money
is the root of all evil are the one's without any. In today's world, if you have substantial assets, and you understand the fact that divorce does not have the social stigma that it once did and therefore becomes the solution to a marital problem a little more easily than a good while ago, then you do what is wise and prudent unless you
want someone else possibly taking one-half of everything that YOU worked for
and which they contributed nothing towards.

There is also very little social stigma in living together and less of a
chance of loosing half you inheritance.
Can you imagine if your parents left you a million dollars and the next
year you got married to a wonderful man/woman and then the next year or so a divorce happened and they took one-half of your million dollars? Fair? I don't think so. rg
That's exactly my point. Why bother risking your inheritance by getting
married? Prenup's get overturned all the time and once there is a child
involved all bets are off.

"Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote in message
news:blc09a$n7p$4@pita.alt.net... If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called for, she is not honest, period.

In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup
because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below
there money. Again, why bother getting married?

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030929223150.12041.00000054@mb-m03.aol.com... I signed one in the first marriage. It hurt my feelings that he asked,
but I did it anyway. However, it turned out to be a moot point, since we put in
a clause that the pre-nup was void upon the marriage producing a child. I
still chose to walk away with only 10% of the assets, because I just wanted
*out*.

Thats' my point. Its hard d to have a good marriage when one side is working
on an exit strategy.
My DH didn't ask for one, and I would have refused to marry him if he had.
If I'd had greater assets, I would not have asked for one, either. In fact,
even though he had significantly greater assets than I, but he made sure that
every asset that was in his name alone before the marriage was transferred to
both of our names. To us, marriage is a merging. Withholding financial resources would have
felt as wrong as withholding emotional resources. I know other couples where finances are kept completely separate, and if both partners are happy with that, that's fine. We wouldn't have been. Sheila
Exactly either your married or your not. period. If your worried more about
your money then maybe marriage isn't for you.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:33:02 GMT,
rg <jobahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030930062653.17462.00000033@mb-m26.aol.com...I would be willing to bet you money that if you had substantial assets, sayin the 2-5 million dollar range or more, and you were getting married to aman that had very little, that you would have him sign a prenup.You can so no when you don't have that but trust me...if you did...youwould. I know.rg Ummm hmm. I'm sure you would. ;-) But, you don't know me. See, if I wanted to sign a pre-nup, I simply wouldn't get married. Sheila So if you fell in love with a multi-millionaire, and he could not get married without you signing a prenup, his legal advisors will make sure he understands exactly why that is necessary, then you are saying that you simply wouldn't get married? And I am telling you, that if YOU were the multi-millionaire and you were in love with someone and you both wanted to get married, YOU would require the prenup. It is easy and common for people without those assets to think that "love" will conquer all and that a prenup is not important and is some kind of antithesis to love. And I am telling you to trust me on this one, that when you do have that kind of money that you will have advisors that make sure you understand this in the most clear terms and a reasonable person will require a prenup be signed before marrying someone. If you or Tony want to believe differently, then you can go ahead and live in your personal illusion.

WTF did you bring my name into this? I wasn't involved (until now I
guess). You really have to do something about your obsession about me.
It's getting unseemly.

Here is the poop. Were I a millionaire, I would never consider having my
wife-to-be to be sign a pre-nup. When we marry, we join our hearts, our
lives and our assets. We don't join our assets except these Millions
which I'm going to keep for myself, thank you.

Call me naive, call me stupid, but I have been called worse by better.

When I get married, it is forever. A pre-nup assumes divorce and if you
go into a marriage assuming divorce your chances of having one have just
ballooned.

By the same token, were I to marry a millionaire, I would not sign a
pre-nup. My fiancee is welcome to take her lawyer's advice, but I won't
sign it. If she chooses her money over me, it was just not meant to be.
I know differently; not believe.......know.

Of course you know differently. You are immune to logic.

Strange as it may seem, there are those who put the decision to love and
committment (The Promise) above the love of money. That is the "for
richer and for poorer" part of the promise.

But you don't seem to subscribe to the lifetime commitment model. And you
may think that I'm naive, or Bill or Sheila (these are the names you seem
to obsess about), but I believe it. And I have almost 19 years under my
belt believing it. What about you?

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

In article <9KKdneholrViF-SiXTWJhg@giganews.com>, Archer wrote: "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote in message news:blc09a$n7p$4@pita.alt.net... If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called for, she is not honest, period. In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below there money. Again, why bother getting married?

I won;t marry you that's for sure Archer... :)

i

Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote: "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called for, she is not honest, period. In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below there money. Again, why bother getting married?

Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and I
don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do
with "why bother getting married."

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
But you don't seem to subscribe to the lifetime commitment model.

I didn't hear him say that. In fact, I thought I heard him say the
opposite.
And you may think that I'm naive, or Bill or Sheila (these are the names you seem to obsess about), but I believe it. And I have almost 19 years under my belt believing it. What about you?

Now why are _you_ bringing poor old _Bill_ into this?

And on the subject of the "lifetime commitment model," I don't know
about rg, but both Bill and Sheila have divorces under their belts.


On the pre-nup subject, I can't really imagine signing one. But I
also can't really imagine being rich enough so that someone would be
after my money with such energy that they could deceive me about their
feelings toward me for long enough for me to marry them. So that's a
failure of imagination I suppose, because this does seem to happen to
people with money.

When my wife and I got married, we had wildly different assets. I had
almost nothing, and she had nothing. It seemed safe at the time.

Doug

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "rg" <jobahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2Keeb.3600$ZE.1120@twister.austin.rr.com... [] And I am telling you, that if YOU were the multi-millionaire and you were in love with someone and you both wanted to get married, YOU would require the prenup. It is easy and common for people without those assets to think that "love" will conquer all and that a prenup is not important and is some kind of antithesis to love. And I am telling you to trust me on this one, that when you do have that kind of money that you will have advisors that make sure you understand this in the most clear terms and a reasonable person will require a prenup be signed before marrying someone. [] It is not reasonable to make blanket statements like this. People are individuals. My assets are not currently worth over a million dollars, but they were at one point. I have experienced being that rich and I would have felt the same way about a pre-nup then that I do now. To me, it is getting married while planning to get divorced and I would not do it. It violates my most basic beliefs about marriage and I put my principles before my money. Jayne

Well said, Jayne! Prenups signify a lack of trust right at the outset (to
me); why even bother getting married?

I seriously considered having a prenup when I got married.. I had just
recently been given interest in some land ( sharing it with my parents)..and
wanted to protect their interest should anything go wrong...I chose not to

My husband.. would have gladly signed it....I just decided that it wasn't
needed.

Kass
"kellya" <kellya@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
news:3f7869cb$1_3@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com... Hi! I am final year journalism student doing a feature on prenups. I am
looking for men/women who have signed or are thinking about signing a prenup agreement, or people who have refused to sign a prenup, who wouldn;t mind answering a few questions It would take 10 mins of your time, and would
make me a very happy person! Thanks Kelly

in article ghheb.469227$Oz4.278335@rwcrnsc54, Doug Anderson at
ethelthelog@yahoo.com wrote on 9/30/03 9:27 AM:
Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: But you don't seem to subscribe to the lifetime commitment model. I didn't hear him say that. In fact, I thought I heard him say the opposite. And you may think that I'm naive, or Bill or Sheila (these are the names you seem to obsess about), but I believe it. And I have almost 19 years under my belt believing it. What about you? Now why are _you_ bringing poor old _Bill_ into this? And on the subject of the "lifetime commitment model," I don't know about rg, but both Bill and Sheila have divorces under their belts. On the pre-nup subject, I can't really imagine signing one. But I also can't really imagine being rich enough so that someone would be after my money with such energy that they could deceive me about their feelings toward me for long enough for me to marry them. So that's a failure of imagination I suppose, because this does seem to happen to people with money. When my wife and I got married, we had wildly different assets. I had almost nothing, and she had nothing. It seemed safe at the time. Doug

Neither did we. On the other hand, I can see some circumstances that might
make me consider some kind of legal framework. Like if I owned a business
with my brother, or some other scenario that meant someone other than me
would suffer some loss if I couldn't keep my marriage together.

M.

Doug Anderson wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: But you don't seem to subscribe to the lifetime commitment model. I didn't hear him say that. In fact, I thought I heard him say the opposite. And you may think that I'm naive, or Bill or Sheila (these are the names you seem to obsess about), but I believe it. And I have almost 19 years under my belt believing it. What about you? Now why are _you_ bringing poor old _Bill_ into this? And on the subject of the "lifetime commitment model," I don't know about rg, but both Bill and Sheila have divorces under their belts.

Not quite yet, but soon...

"Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote: "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called for, she is not honest, period. In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just
below there money. Again, why bother getting married? Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and
I don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do with "why bother getting married."

As you say "Your call" but, if I still have to "verify" something with
someone I plan to marry I might want to think twice about marrying them.

"Archer" <archer@archer.tzo.com> writes:
"Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message news:imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote: "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: > If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called > for, she is not honest, period. In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below there money. Again, why bother getting married? Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and I don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do with "why bother getting married." As you say "Your call" but, if I still have to "verify" something with someone I plan to marry I might want to think twice about marrying them.

Hell, yes. You probably ought to think not just twice, but maybe even 3
or 4 times before marrrying someone if it is a serious committment for you.

On the other hand, since lots of people don't even seem to think
_once_ before marrying someone, maybe there should be _more_ pre-nups.

In article <imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote: "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called for, she is not honest, period. In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below there money. Again, why bother getting married? Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and I don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do with "why bother getting married."

Signing a fair prenup simply means that neither party intends to steal
the other's money, that's all. It does not presuppose that you are
intending to divorce. You are making sure that the other side does not
want to take you for a ride.

i

You can think once, or twice, etc, but the truth is you do not know
the person well until you married them, had children with them etc.

i

In article <ex2cnUH7avC0M-SiU-KYgg@giganews.com>, Archer wrote: "Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message news:imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote: "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: > If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called > for, she is not honest, period. In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below there money. Again, why bother getting married? Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and I don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do with "why bother getting married." As you say "Your call" but, if I still have to "verify" something with someone I plan to marry I might want to think twice about marrying them.

On 30 Sep 2003 16:31:02 GMT,
Ignoramus16314 <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: In article <imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote: "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: > If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called > for, she is not honest, period. In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below there money. Again, why bother getting married? Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and I don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do with "why bother getting married." Signing a fair prenup simply means that neither party intends to steal the other's money, that's all. It does not presuppose that you are intending to divorce. You are making sure that the other side does not want to take you for a ride.

If you're not indending to divorce, why a pre-nup? Isn't the only thing a
pre-nup addresses is asset division after a divorce (and what is, or isn't
included)?

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Archer" <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote in message
news:9KKdneholrViF-SiXTWJhg@giganews.com... "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote in message news:blc09a$n7p$4@pita.alt.net... If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called for, she is not honest, period. In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below there money. Again, why bother getting married?

And conversely, a person that is not willing to sign a prenup with someone
that does have those assets is showing you right at the start that they want
your money more than they want you.

rg

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbnj3co.kn0.tony@callisto.jtan.com... On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:33:02 GMT, rg <jobahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030930062653.17462.00000033@mb-m26.aol.com... >I would be willing to bet you money that if you had substantial
assets, say >in the 2-5 million dollar range or more, and you were getting married
to a >man that had very little, that you would have him sign a prenup. > >You can so no when you don't have that but trust me...if you did...you >would. I know. > >rg Ummm hmm. I'm sure you would. ;-) But, you don't know me. See, if I wanted to sign a pre-nup, I simply wouldn't get married. Sheila So if you fell in love with a multi-millionaire, and he could not get married without you signing a prenup, his legal advisors will make sure
he understands exactly why that is necessary, then you are saying that you simply wouldn't get married? And I am telling you, that if YOU were the multi-millionaire and you
were in love with someone and you both wanted to get married, YOU would require
the prenup. It is easy and common for people without those assets to think that
"love" will conquer all and that a prenup is not important and is some kind of antithesis to love. And I am telling you to trust me on this one, that
when you do have that kind of money that you will have advisors that make
sure you understand this in the most clear terms and a reasonable person will require a prenup be signed before marrying someone. If you or Tony want to believe differently, then you can go ahead and
live in your personal illusion. WTF did you bring my name into this? I wasn't involved (until now I guess). You really have to do something about your obsession about me. It's getting unseemly. Here is the poop. Were I a millionaire, I would never consider having my wife-to-be to be sign a pre-nup. When we marry, we join our hearts, our lives and our assets. We don't join our assets except these Millions which I'm going to keep for myself, thank you. Call me naive, call me stupid, but I have been called worse by better. When I get married, it is forever. A pre-nup assumes divorce and if you go into a marriage assuming divorce your chances of having one have just ballooned. By the same token, were I to marry a millionaire, I would not sign a pre-nup. My fiancee is welcome to take her lawyer's advice, but I won't sign it. If she chooses her money over me, it was just not meant to be. I know differently; not believe.......know. Of course you know differently. You are immune to logic. Strange as it may seem, there are those who put the decision to love and committment (The Promise) above the love of money. That is the "for richer and for poorer" part of the promise. But you don't seem to subscribe to the lifetime commitment model. And you may think that I'm naive, or Bill or Sheila (these are the names you seem to obsess about), but I believe it. And I have almost 19 years under my belt believing it. What about you? -Tony

You weren't involved???? WTF bringing your name into this? Do I have the
wrong Tony?
Yeah, listen to rg. He knows what he's talking about. ;)


rg

"Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote in message
news:blcbhs$sn0$0@pita.alt.net... You can think once, or twice, etc, but the truth is you do not know the person well until you married them, had children with them etc. i In article <ex2cnUH7avC0M-SiU-KYgg@giganews.com>, Archer wrote: "Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message news:imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote: > "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: > > If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called > > for, she is not honest, period. > > In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup > because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below > there money. Again, why bother getting married? Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify"
and I don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to
do with "why bother getting married." As you say "Your call" but, if I still have to "verify" something with someone I plan to marry I might want to think twice about marrying them.

i, I have decided it's no use arguing with these people. I don't think I
really have a place here and don't think I have anything to contribute to
this group. And a few would applaud that are say that I haven't said
anything worthy of a contribution. :)

I have learned one thing though.

I can now better appreciate how difficult it is to bring about world peace.
Can you just imagine? Here we all are, fairly civil people and all we
really can do is fight like a bunch of cats and dogs.

Can you imagine how much harder it is to get two peoples that are not
friendly with one another to sit down at the same table and sign a peace
agreement? Some of these folks wouldn't even sign a prenup ...much less a
peace agreement!! :)

So long, pardner.

rg

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ghheb.469227$Oz4.278335@rwcrnsc54... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: But you don't seem to subscribe to the lifetime commitment model. I didn't hear him say that. In fact, I thought I heard him say the opposite. And you may think that I'm naive, or Bill or Sheila (these are the names you
seem to obsess about), but I believe it. And I have almost 19 years under my belt believing it. What about you? Now why are _you_ bringing poor old _Bill_ into this? And on the subject of the "lifetime commitment model," I don't know about rg, but both Bill and Sheila have divorces under their belts. On the pre-nup subject, I can't really imagine signing one. But I also can't really imagine being rich enough so that someone would be after my money with such energy that they could deceive me about their feelings toward me for long enough for me to marry them. So that's a failure of imagination I suppose, because this does seem to happen to people with money. When my wife and I got married, we had wildly different assets. I had almost nothing, and she had nothing. It seemed safe at the time. Doug

I have to do the math every time I do this. Got married in 1972, June.
Still married to the same one.
Let's see 2003-1972 = about 31 years now.

rg

Ignoramus16314 wrote: In article <imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote: "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote:> If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called> for, she is not honest, period. In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below there money. Again, why bother getting married? Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and I don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do with "why bother getting married." Signing a fair prenup simply means that neither party intends to steal the other's money, that's all. It does not presuppose that you are intending to divorce. You are making sure that the other side does not want to take you for a ride.

There are NO guarantees in life. You may be deluding yourself.

Archer wrote: "Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message news:imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote: "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote:> If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called> for, she is not honest, period. In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below there money. Again, why bother getting married? Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and I don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do with "why bother getting married." As you say "Your call" but, if I still have to "verify" something with someone I plan to marry I might want to think twice about marrying them.

I wouldn't have to think twice - I'd know right away. :-)

In article <q2jeb.8967$RW4.3686@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Bill in Co wrote: Ignoramus16314 wrote: In article <imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote:> "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote:>> If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called>> for, she is not honest, period.>> In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup> because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below> there money. Again, why bother getting married? Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and I don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do with "why bother getting married." Signing a fair prenup simply means that neither party intends to steal the other's money, that's all. It does not presuppose that you are intending to divorce. You are making sure that the other side does not want to take you for a ride. There are NO guarantees in life. You may be deluding yourself.

that there are no guarantees in life is exactly what I was saying!!!

i

In article <t0jeb.306$iH6.93@twister.austin.rr.com>, rg wrote: I have to do the math every time I do this. Got married in 1972, June. Still married to the same one.

funny, I was one year and three months old then...

i

Ever heard of "common law" ? in some states.. after cohabitating for X
number of years..you might as well be married..

Kass
"Archer" <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote in message
news:OnOdnbWhzZNYFOSiXTWJkw@giganews.com... No, a prenup to me seems like a divorce plan and it thats the case why get married. The only people that say what you just said are people that do not have substantial assets. Kind of like the only people that say that money isn't important or
money is the root of all evil are the one's without any. In today's world, if you have substantial assets, and you understand the fact that divorce does not have the social stigma that it once did and therefore becomes the solution to a marital problem a little more easily than a good while ago, then you do what is wise and prudent unless you want someone else possibly taking one-half of everything that YOU worked for and which they contributed nothing towards. There is also very little social stigma in living together and less of a chance of loosing half you inheritance. Can you imagine if your parents left you a million dollars and the next year you got married to a wonderful man/woman and then the next year or so a divorce happened and they took one-half of your million dollars? Fair?
I don't think so. rg That's exactly my point. Why bother risking your inheritance by getting married? Prenup's get overturned all the time and once there is a child involved all bets are off.

Ignoramus16314 wrote: In article <q2jeb.8967$RW4.3686@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Bill in Co wrote: Ignoramus16314 wrote: In article <imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote:> Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote:>> "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote:>>> If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called>>> for, she is not honest, period.>>>> In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup>> because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just
below>> there money. Again, why bother getting married?>> Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and
I> don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do> with "why bother getting married." Signing a fair prenup simply means that neither party intends to steal the other's money, that's all. It does not presuppose that you are intending to divorce. You are making sure that the other side does not want to take you for a ride. There are NO guarantees in life. You may be deluding yourself. that there are no guarantees in life is exactly what I was saying!!!

So forget about the prenup. You missed the point.

[emailed also]
"rg" <> wrote in message news:r_ieb.281$iH6.185@twister.austin.rr.com...

[] i, I have decided it's no use arguing with these people. I don't think I really have a place here and don't think I have anything to contribute to this group. And a few would applaud that are say that I haven't said anything worthy of a contribution. :)

[] So long, pardner.

I missed you when you were gone a little while ago and looked forward to you
coming back. If you would like to discuss this in email, please feel free
to write.}

Jayne

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:06:35 GMT,
rg <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnbnj3co.kn0.tony@callisto.jtan.com... On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:33:02 GMT, rg <jobahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030930062653.17462.00000033@mb-m26.aol.com...> >I would be willing to bet you money that if you had substantial assets, say> >in the 2-5 million dollar range or more, and you were getting married to a> >man that had very little, that you would have him sign a prenup.> >> >You can so no when you don't have that but trust me...if you did...you> >would. I know.> >> >rg>> Ummm hmm. I'm sure you would. ;-)>> But, you don't know me. See, if I wanted to sign a pre-nup, I simply wouldn't> get married.>> Sheila So if you fell in love with a multi-millionaire, and he could not get married without you signing a prenup, his legal advisors will make sure he understands exactly why that is necessary, then you are saying that you simply wouldn't get married? And I am telling you, that if YOU were the multi-millionaire and you were in love with someone and you both wanted to get married, YOU would require the prenup. It is easy and common for people without those assets to think that "love" will conquer all and that a prenup is not important and is some kind of antithesis to love. And I am telling you to trust me on this one, that when you do have that kind of money that you will have advisors that make sure you understand this in the most clear terms and a reasonable person will require a prenup be signed before marrying someone. If you or Tony want to believe differently, then you can go ahead and live in your personal illusion. WTF did you bring my name into this? I wasn't involved (until now I guess). You really have to do something about your obsession about me. It's getting unseemly. Here is the poop. Were I a millionaire, I would never consider having my wife-to-be to be sign a pre-nup. When we marry, we join our hearts, our lives and our assets. We don't join our assets except these Millions which I'm going to keep for myself, thank you. Call me naive, call me stupid, but I have been called worse by better. When I get married, it is forever. A pre-nup assumes divorce and if you go into a marriage assuming divorce your chances of having one have just ballooned. By the same token, were I to marry a millionaire, I would not sign a pre-nup. My fiancee is welcome to take her lawyer's advice, but I won't sign it. If she chooses her money over me, it was just not meant to be. I know differently; not believe.......know. Of course you know differently. You are immune to logic. Strange as it may seem, there are those who put the decision to love and committment (The Promise) above the love of money. That is the "for richer and for poorer" part of the promise. But you don't seem to subscribe to the lifetime commitment model. And you may think that I'm naive, or Bill or Sheila (these are the names you seem to obsess about), but I believe it. And I have almost 19 years under my belt believing it. What about you? -Tony You weren't involved???? WTF bringing your name into this? Do I have the wrong Tony?Yeah, listen to rg. He knows what he's talking about. ;)

Different thread, bunky. You really have to start taking your meds again,
all these threads are melting together in your mind.
rg

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

kellya <kellya@aladdinscave.net> wrote:
Hi! I am final year journalism student doing a feature on prenups. I am looking for men/women who have signed or are thinking about signing a prenup agreement, or people who have refused to sign a prenup, who wouldn;t mind answering a few questions It would take 10 mins of your time, and would make me a very happy person!

A prenup is the only way that people who already have children can
insure that each spouse's own children get their parent's assets.
Otherwise the children of the last one to die lucks out monetarily.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
On the pre-nup subject, I can't really imagine signing one. But I also can't really imagine being rich enough so that someone would be after my money with such energy that they could deceive me about their feelings toward me for long enough for me to marry them. So that's a failure of imagination I suppose, because this does seem to happen to people with money.

LOL Doug. That's pretty much where I fall also.

rg <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "Archer" <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote in message In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below there money. Again, why bother getting married? And conversely, a person that is not willing to sign a prenup with someone that does have those assets is showing you right at the start that they want your money more than they want you.

Or that it's a matter of some kind of principle for them, even if a lot of
us feel it's a silly principle. Such a person would probably take other
things which seem equally silly on principle, and even if they don't care
about your money, it's a point to consider in terms of compatibility.

Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: rg <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "Archer" <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote in message In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below there money. Again, why bother getting married? And conversely, a person that is not willing to sign a prenup with someone that does have those assets is showing you right at the start that they want your money more than they want you. Or that it's a matter of some kind of principle for them, even if a lot of us feel it's a silly principle.

"Silly" and "principle" in the same sentence? (It sounds like an oxymoron to
me)

Bill in Co <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Or that it's a matter of some kind of principle for them, even if a lot of us feel it's a silly principle. "Silly" and "principle" in the same sentence? (It sounds like an oxymoron to me)

Principle in essence just means "because it's important to me."

There are valuable principles, like keeping one's word, and silly ones, like
not eating some particular food.

"rg" <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> writes:
i, I have decided it's no use arguing with these people.

Arguing is rarely of much use on usenet. Not that that always stops me.
I don't think I really have a place here and don't think I have anything to contribute to this group.

I disagree with this. You do have insights to offer and contributions
to make. Some people have a great deal of trouble appreciating
complexity, ambiguity and subtlety. Especially on usenet. Such
people may never appreciate anything you say, but not everyone is such
a person.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
If you're not indending to divorce, why a pre-nup? Isn't the only thing a pre-nup addresses is asset division after a divorce (and what is, or isn't included)?

I don't think _anyone_ gets married intending to divorce. And yet a
large portion of those who get married _do_ divorce.

This is a bit like, "if you aren't planning to get sick, why have
health insurance." Not everything goes according to plan. Pre-nups,
like insurance, are for when things don't turn out as planned.

>> I don't think I really have a place here and don't think I have anything to contribute to this group.I disagree with this. You do have insights to offer and contributionsto make. Some people have a great deal of trouble appreciatingcomplexity, ambiguity and subtlety. Especially on usenet. Suchpeople may never appreciate anything you say, but not everyone is sucha person.

Awww, Doug. Doesn't rg get ragged on for *telling* me what I would do, if I
had lots and lots of money? A bit of a double-standard?

Sheila

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
I don't think I really have a place here and don't think I have anything to contribute to this group.I disagree with this. You do have insights to offer and contributionsto make. Some people have a great deal of trouble appreciatingcomplexity, ambiguity and subtlety. Especially on usenet. Suchpeople may never appreciate anything you say, but not everyone is sucha person. Awww, Doug. Doesn't rg get ragged on for *telling* me what I would do, if I had lots and lots of money? A bit of a double-standard?

What's the double standard?

>> Awww, Doug. Doesn't rg get ragged on for *telling* me what I would do, ifI had lots and lots of money? A bit of a double-standard?What's the double standard?

That I get flack for not being "open" to others' perspectives, IYO. Telling
someone that they are absolutely *wrong* when they say what they are going to
do is not being very "open", is it?

But, it really doesn't surprise me that you didn't say anything. Of course,
you felt compelled to say something about my comment last night (or was it the
night before), but... that was different, wasn't it?

Sheila

Sheila

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
Awww, Doug. Doesn't rg get ragged on for *telling* me what I would do, ifI had lots and lots of money? A bit of a double-standard?What's the double standard? That I get flack for not being "open" to others' perspectives, IYO. Telling someone that they are absolutely *wrong* when they say what they are going to do is not being very "open", is it?

OK Sheila. I just want to go on record that you started this.

Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives may
change according to circumstances. I think in general that is
correct.

Your point seems to be that you are an exception, and that no
circumstances will make your perspective change. Or maybe that
people's perspectives don't change according to the circumstances. Or
maybe that people's perspectives _shouldn't_ change according to the
circumstances. I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

Whatever your point is, I find the argument that people's perspectives
change according to their circumstances more compelling than one that
says people's perspectives remain constant as their circumstances
change. It matches what I've observed both in others and in myself.
But, it really doesn't surprise me that you didn't say anything. Of course, you felt compelled to say something about my comment last night (or was it the night before), but... that was different, wasn't it?

I don't know. What remark was that?

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:52:00 GMT,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: If you're not indending to divorce, why a pre-nup? Isn't the only thing a pre-nup addresses is asset division after a divorce (and what is, or isn't included)? I don't think _anyone_ gets married intending to divorce. And yet a large portion of those who get married _do_ divorce.

Ok, here's the poop. I'm not going to marry anyone who will entertain the
possibility of divorce. Now will you please admit that I don't have any
use for a pre nup?

And if you get a pre-nup, you're planning for divorce.
This is a bit like, "if you aren't planning to get sick, why have health insurance." Not everything goes according to plan. Pre-nups, like insurance, are for when things don't turn out as planned.

Getting sick is not a choice. Dying is not a choice. Having your house
burn down is not a choice. Getting in a car accident is not a choice.
We insure ourselves against things over which we have no control. We
*choose* to divorce. Why would I insure myself against something that IS
NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN? Where I live that's called a "sucker's bet".

Or are you one of those people who believe that divorces "just happen",
like pregnancies "just happen". :P

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

>Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives maychange according to circumstances. I think in general that iscorrect.

No no no no no. That is my point. He didn't say "*may*". He didn't say
"possibly". He said he KNEW --not even that HE would, but that *I* would.

My point is that every little word I say on here gets dissected and jumped on
by you. rg gets a pass. I just want *that* on the record.

Actually, I hope he doesn't leave. His posts have made for some amusing
conversations for me IRL, too. I'll miss being able to provide lunchtime
entertainment.

Sheila

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives maychange according to circumstances. I think in general that iscorrect. No no no no no. That is my point. He didn't say "*may*". He didn't say "possibly". He said he KNEW --not even that HE would, but that *I* would.

I'm not interested in trying to parse the above. I'm not sure I can.
My point is that every little word I say on here gets dissected and jumped on by you.

Hmm. I feel that what _I_ say gets dissected and jumped on (well,
really just jumped on) by you.
rg gets a pass. I just want *that* on the record.

I've jumped on him too, don't worry. Though it may have been before
your time.

Doug

whisper wrote: I seriously considered having a prenup when I got married.. I had just recently been given interest in some land ( sharing it with my parents)..and wanted to protect their interest should anything go wrong...I chose not to My husband.. would have gladly signed it....I just decided that it wasn't needed. Kass

In my first marriage we were both fairly young and really had nothing
other than jobs. In my second marriage I came in "wildly poor" with a
mountain of debt (now paid off) from the first marriage. If my second
wife had asked me to sign a prenup I would have done it happily. Her
peace of mind was very important to me and if a document was what it
took why wouldn't I sign it.

WhansaMi wrote: Awww, Doug. Doesn't rg get ragged on for *telling* me what I would do, if
I had lots and lots of money? A bit of a double-standard? What's the double standard? That I get flack for not being "open" to others' perspectives, IYO. Telling someone that they are absolutely *wrong* when they say what they are going to do is not being very "open", is it? But, it really doesn't surprise me that you didn't say anything. Of course, you felt compelled to say something about my comment last night (or was it
the night before), but... that was different, wasn't it? Sheila Sheila

Doesn't surprise me either, Sheila. LOL. I am reminded of...."Forgive them
Lord, for they know not what they do", except in this case, it should read,
"Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they see" - cause they can't see it.

WhansaMi wrote: Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives may change according to circumstances. I think in general that is correct.

Sometimes yes, sometimes NO - because some people stand by their innate
principles, and don't succumb to the current fads.
No no no no no. That is my point. He didn't say "*may*". He didn't say "possibly". He said he KNEW --not even that HE would, but that *I* would. My point is that every little word I say on here gets dissected and jumped on by you. rg gets a pass. I just want *that* on the record.

YUP. I am reminded of...."Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do",
except in this case, it should read, "Forgive them Lord, for they know not what
they see" - cause they can't see it.

In article <slrnbnjcrc.stc.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller wrote: On 30 Sep 2003 16:31:02 GMT, Ignoramus16314 <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: In article <imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote:> "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote:> > If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called> > for, she is not honest, period.>> In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup> because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below> there money. Again, why bother getting married? Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and I don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do with "why bother getting married." Signing a fair prenup simply means that neither party intends to steal the other's money, that's all. It does not presuppose that you are intending to divorce. You are making sure that the other side does not want to take you for a ride. If you're not indending to divorce, why a pre-nup? Isn't the only thing a pre-nup addresses is asset division after a divorce (and what is, or isn't included)?

No, it can also include what happens to assets in case of your death,
which is important if you have children and want them to inherit
something.

Besides, you are not God, so you cannot read the other person's
mind. Even if you do not intend to divorce, how do you know the other
party is not?

How do you know if your fiance is not going to cheat on you in 10
years after the wedding?

i
-Tony

In article <Joqeb.9030$bG2.7060@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, Coorslte wrote: whisper wrote: I seriously considered having a prenup when I got married.. I had just recently been given interest in some land ( sharing it with my parents)..and wanted to protect their interest should anything go wrong...I chose not to My husband.. would have gladly signed it....I just decided that it wasn't needed. Kass In my first marriage we were both fairly young and really had nothing other than jobs. In my second marriage I came in "wildly poor" with a mountain of debt (now paid off) from the first marriage. If my second wife had asked me to sign a prenup I would have done it happily. Her peace of mind was very important to me and if a document was what it took why wouldn't I sign it.

thus speaks an honest man.

i

"rg" <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Larry Kessler" <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote in message Inheritances are separate property. So is property owned at the start of the marriage. That doesn't stop a judge from awarding some or all of it to the other spouse, however, especially if the loser is male.In the great state of Texas, even inheritances are considered communityproperty unless documentation can be clearly established otherwise.

Thanks to that "unless" clause, pretty much ALL property is considered
community property. However, Texas Family Code §3.001 states that "A
spouse's separate property consists of: [...] (2) the property
acquired by the spouse during marriage by gift, devise or descent".
"Descent" means a bequest or inheritance.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=WQDPJALVUGOV&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=129328&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=2&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES

On 1 Oct 2003 03:37:10 GMT,
Ignoramus16314 <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: In article <slrnbnjcrc.stc.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller wrote: On 30 Sep 2003 16:31:02 GMT, Ignoramus16314 <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: In article <imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote:> Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote:>> "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote:>> > If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called>> > for, she is not honest, period.>>>> In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup>> because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below>> there money. Again, why bother getting married?>> Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and I> don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do> with "why bother getting married." Signing a fair prenup simply means that neither party intends to steal the other's money, that's all. It does not presuppose that you are intending to divorce. You are making sure that the other side does not want to take you for a ride. If you're not indending to divorce, why a pre-nup? Isn't the only thing a pre-nup addresses is asset division after a divorce (and what is, or isn't included)? No, it can also include what happens to assets in case of your death, which is important if you have children and want them to inherit something.

That's called a "will".
Besides, you are not God, so you cannot read the other person's mind. Even if you do not intend to divorce, how do you know the other party is not?

Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in divorce.
How do you know if your fiance is not going to cheat on you in 10 years after the wedding?

Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in adultery.

-Tony

PS: I feel sorry for you people who believe marriage is some sort of crap
shoot. What a lousy attitude to go into a marriage with. No wonder they
fail.

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:52:00 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: If you're not indending to divorce, why a pre-nup? Isn't the only thing a pre-nup addresses is asset division after a divorce (and what is, or isn't included)? I don't think _anyone_ gets married intending to divorce. And yet a large portion of those who get married _do_ divorce. Ok, here's the poop. I'm not going to marry anyone who will entertain the possibility of divorce. Now will you please admit that I don't have any use for a pre nup?

Sure.
And if you get a pre-nup, you're planning for divorce.

But this is a ridiculous statement.
This is a bit like, "if you aren't planning to get sick, why have health insurance." Not everything goes according to plan. Pre-nups, like insurance, are for when things don't turn out as planned. Getting sick is not a choice. Dying is not a choice. Having your house burn down is not a choice. Getting in a car accident is not a choice. We insure ourselves against things over which we have no control. We *choose* to divorce. Why would I insure myself against something that IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN? Where I live that's called a "sucker's bet". Or are you one of those people who believe that divorces "just happen", like pregnancies "just happen". :P

You could end up with a divorce even if _you_ don't choose it.

At least in the U.S.

You didn't know this?

Doug Anderson wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:52:00 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:> If you're not indending to divorce, why a pre-nup? Isn't the only thing a> pre-nup addresses is asset division after a divorce (and what is, or isn't> included)? I don't think _anyone_ gets married intending to divorce. And yet a large portion of those who get married _do_ divorce. Ok, here's the poop. I'm not going to marry anyone who will entertain the possibility of divorce. Now will you please admit that I don't have any use for a pre nup? Sure. And if you get a pre-nup, you're planning for divorce. But this is a ridiculous statement. This is a bit like, "if you aren't planning to get sick, why have health insurance." Not everything goes according to plan. Pre-nups, like insurance, are for when things don't turn out as planned. Getting sick is not a choice. Dying is not a choice. Having your house burn down is not a choice. Getting in a car accident is not a choice. We insure ourselves against things over which we have no control. We *choose* to divorce. Why would I insure myself against something that IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN? Where I live that's called a "sucker's bet". Or are you one of those people who believe that divorces "just happen", like pregnancies "just happen". :P You could end up with a divorce even if _you_ don't choose it. At least in the U.S. You didn't know this?

A prenup is not a guarantee of anything, anyway. The reality is, there are NO
guarantees in life, so it's a delusion from the "get go".

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
A prenup is not a guarantee of anything, anyway. The reality is, there are NO guarantees in life, so it's a delusion from the "get go".

Just because there are no guarantees does not mean that it is never
worthwhile taking precautions.

But you are right that there are no guarantees.

Tell it to Tony. Apparently he guarantees he's never getting
divorced. (Well, unless his wife breaks some important rule. Or
unless _she_ decides to get divorced.)

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbnkkcq.j36.tony@callisto.jtan.com... Besides, you are not God, so you cannot read the other person's mind. Even if you do not intend to divorce, how do you know the other party is not? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in divorce. How do you know if your fiance is not going to cheat on you in 10 years after the wedding? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in adultery. -Tony PS: I feel sorry for you people who believe marriage is some sort of crap shoot. What a lousy attitude to go into a marriage with. No wonder they fail.

<delurk>

Tony, there are some people who experience divorce against their will, and
truly there would have been no way to predict what was in store for them
when they were married 20-some years ago. I present as an example my
friends K (wife) and M (husband). Two things happened to them; the second
was likely a direct result of the first. First, K & M's 15-month-old
daughter was diagnosed with brain cancer. She's now 7 and permanently
handicapped, but she's alive. Still, the past 6 years for the little
girl--and her older brother--have been characterized by, as you can imagine,
countless hospitalizations, treatments, etc. She will require ongoing care
for her entire life, if she survives.

Second, M became extremely depressed. It's likely he's still very
depressed. He decided he needed to get away from it all. As K has told me
time and time again, this is completely uncharacteristic of the M she's
known for over 20 years. But a year ago this fall, M out of the blue said
he was leaving, and he left. K is absolutely, 100% opposed to divorce in
every way...spiritual, emotional...it's been a year and she still cannot
abide the concept that she is being divorced, and I talk to her all the time
to hear her pain: "What happened? He's not the same person I knew. Why?"
And so on.

Yet K has no option. She has tried every sort of appeal, counseling (he
refuses to go), you name it. She's terrified about her future, she still
loves M, but she doesn't have the choice to stay married, though it's what
she wants more than anything in the world. This can happen. It's terrible,
perhaps a reality such as this one is rarer than the casual divorce (if
there is such a thing), but there's no way you can envision the entire
future regardless of the person you believe you're marrying.

FWIW, I'm mixed about pre-nups. I'm neither here nor there. I don't find
them offensive, nor do I find them necessary in many instances. When my DH
and I were married, we had nothing, but we've built up a sizable chunk of
change together. If something happened to DH and I were to remarry someday,
I can't see risking that money that I want earmarked for specific things
(e.g., DH's and my children). OTOH, if my SO were fervently opposed, I
imagine I'd examine his reasoning and consider his request.

I wonder how many more women are offended at being asked to sign a pre-nup
as opposed to men. I would imagine women are more likely to fear the label
of "gold digger," and also I think society would be sympathetic to a single
woman trying to protect her finances.

Jennifer

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Ignoramus16314 <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: Besides, you are not God, so you cannot read the other person's mind. Even if you do not intend to divorce, how do you know the other party is not? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in divorce.

Who CLAIMS not to. Or more properly, claims not to hold with the practice:
it exists, and disbelieving it won't make it go away.
How do you know if your fiance is not going to cheat on you in 10 years after the wedding? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in adultery.

Who CLAIMS not to. Or more properly, claims not to hold with the practice:
it exists, and disbelieving it won't make it go away.

In article <slrnbnkkcq.j36.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller wrote: On 1 Oct 2003 03:37:10 GMT, Ignoramus16314 <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: In article <slrnbnjcrc.stc.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller wrote: On 30 Sep 2003 16:31:02 GMT, Ignoramus16314 <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote:> In article <imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote:>> Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote:>>> "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote:>>> > If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called>>> > for, she is not honest, period.>>>>>> In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup>>> because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below>>> there money. Again, why bother getting married?>>>> Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and I>> don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do>> with "why bother getting married.">> Signing a fair prenup simply means that neither party intends to steal> the other's money, that's all. It does not presuppose that you are> intending to divorce. You are making sure that the other side does not> want to take you for a ride. If you're not indending to divorce, why a pre-nup? Isn't the only thing a pre-nup addresses is asset division after a divorce (and what is, or isn't included)? No, it can also include what happens to assets in case of your death, which is important if you have children and want them to inherit something. That's called a "will".

You are wrong, there are numerous laws that give spouses a huge
advantage in receiving inheritance even if the will says otherwise.

For example, I cannot bequeath my marital house to, say, american
heart accociation.
Besides, you are not God, so you cannot read the other person's mind. Even if you do not intend to divorce, how do you know the other party is not? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in divorce.

that's what you think, but you cannot read their mind.
How do you know if your fiance is not going to cheat on you in 10 years after the wedding? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in adultery. -Tony PS: I feel sorry for you people who believe marriage is some sort of crap shoot. What a lousy attitude to go into a marriage with. No wonder they fail.

Well, myself, I am still married, in fact not that unhappily.

Tony, are you still married, and if so, how long have you been
married? Any kids?

i

>FWIW, I'm mixed about pre-nups. I'm neither here nor there. I don't findthem offensive, nor do I find them necessary in many instances. When my DHand I were married, we had nothing, but we've built up a sizable chunk ofchange together. If something happened to DH and I were to remarry someday,I can't see risking that money that I want earmarked for specific things(e.g., DH's and my children). OTOH, if my SO were fervently opposed, Iimagine I'd examine his reasoning and consider his request.

For me, it is all about intimacy, and state of mind.

I don't want to be in a long-term relationship with anyone I believe, or am
afraid, is "out for my money". I don't want to be long-term with anyone who
believes that is *my* motivation --even a little bit-- for being with them. I
certainly don't want to marry them!

In order for me to attain true intimacy, there has to be complete trust and
sharing. And, I don't *want* to settle for anything else.

Does that mean that, if my DH died, I'd be less likely to find someone else to
make a commitment with? Probably. Does it mean that, if I did find someone,
I'd might be more likely to be "taken advantage of"? Possibly. But, I'd
rather take those chances, because I'd rather have no relationship at all (or a
series of casual flings) than to have a long-term relationship or marriage that
doesn't have that level of trust and intimacy.

I understand that some people don't share that perspective. But, that is what
*I* need in order to commit to a relationship.

Sheila

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bAqeb.10673$NX3.7236@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net... WhansaMi wrote: Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives may change according to circumstances. I think in general that is correct. Sometimes yes, sometimes NO - because some people stand by their innate principles, and don't succumb to the current fads.

Unfortunately your posts come across as saying that people who agree with
you are acting from principle and those who disagree are succumbing to fads.
You do not seem to grasp that other people might operate from different
principles than you do.

Jayne

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 03:32:54 -0400,
Jennifer <JenPam2003@yahoo.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnbnkkcq.j36.tony@callisto.jtan.com... Besides, you are not God, so you cannot read the other person's mind. Even if you do not intend to divorce, how do you know the other party is not? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in divorce. How do you know if your fiance is not going to cheat on you in 10 years after the wedding? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in adultery. -Tony PS: I feel sorry for you people who believe marriage is some sort of crap shoot. What a lousy attitude to go into a marriage with. No wonder they fail.<delurk> Tony, there are some people who experience divorce against their will, and truly there would have been no way to predict what was in store for them when they were married 20-some years ago. I present as an example my friends K (wife) and M (husband). Two things happened to them; the second was likely a direct result of the first. First, K & M's 15-month-old daughter was diagnosed with brain cancer. She's now 7 and permanently handicapped, but she's alive. Still, the past 6 years for the little girl--and her older brother--have been characterized by, as you can imagine, countless hospitalizations, treatments, etc. She will require ongoing care for her entire life, if she survives.

I know plenty of committed married couples who have handicapped children
(and I know them personally). The child almost seems to be the glue who
holds them together [for better or worse]. I also know couples whose
spouse is gravely ill for a long time. They love and support one another
(most of it is one way) [in sickness and in health].
Second, M became extremely depressed. It's likely he's still very depressed. He decided he needed to get away from it all. As K has told me time and time again, this is completely uncharacteristic of the M she's known for over 20 years. But a year ago this fall, M out of the blue said he was leaving, and he left. K is absolutely, 100% opposed to divorce in every way...spiritual, emotional...it's been a year and she still cannot abide the concept that she is being divorced, and I talk to her all the time to hear her pain: "What happened? He's not the same person I knew. Why?" And so on.

This could have been a medical problem. But some people do change.
Yet K has no option. She has tried every sort of appeal, counseling (he refuses to go), you name it. She's terrified about her future, she still loves M, but she doesn't have the choice to stay married, though it's what she wants more than anything in the world. This can happen. It's terrible, perhaps a reality such as this one is rarer than the casual divorce (if there is such a thing), but there's no way you can envision the entire future regardless of the person you believe you're marrying.

This is why I'm a rabid opponent of no-fault divorce. This poor woman did
nothing to him. He should either stick with her, or pay until it hurts.
FWIW, I'm mixed about pre-nups. I'm neither here nor there. I don't find them offensive, nor do I find them necessary in many instances. When my DH and I were married, we had nothing, but we've built up a sizable chunk of change together. If something happened to DH and I were to remarry someday, I can't see risking that money that I want earmarked for specific things (e.g., DH's and my children). OTOH, if my SO were fervently opposed, I imagine I'd examine his reasoning and consider his request. I wonder how many more women are offended at being asked to sign a pre-nup as opposed to men. I would imagine women are more likely to fear the label of "gold digger," and also I think society would be sympathetic to a single woman trying to protect her finances.

Sounds like a double standard to me :)
Jennifer

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:15:31 -0700,
Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Ignoramus16314 <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: Besides, you are not God, so you cannot read the other person's mind. Even if you do not intend to divorce, how do you know the other party is not? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in divorce. Who CLAIMS not to. Or more properly, claims not to hold with the practice: it exists, and disbelieving it won't make it go away.

It'll make it go away *for you*.
How do you know if your fiance is not going to cheat on you in 10 years after the wedding? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in adultery. Who CLAIMS not to. Or more properly, claims not to hold with the practice: it exists, and disbelieving it won't make it go away.

It'll make it go away *for you*.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On 1 Oct 2003 10:49:08 GMT,
Ignoramus28710 <ignoramus28710@NOSPAM.28710.invalid> wrote: In article <slrnbnkkcq.j36.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller wrote: On 1 Oct 2003 03:37:10 GMT, Ignoramus16314 <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: In article <slrnbnjcrc.stc.tony@callisto.jtan.com>, Tony Miller wrote:> On 30 Sep 2003 16:31:02 GMT,> Ignoramus16314 <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote:>> In article <imio41-fiu.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote:>>> Archer <archer@archer.tzo.com> wrote:>>>> "Ignoramus16314" <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote:>>>> > If a fiance does not want to sign a fair prenup when one is called>>>> > for, she is not honest, period.>>>>>>>> In my opinion I would not bother to marry someone who wanted a Prenup>>>> because they are showing you right at the start where you stand just below>>>> there money. Again, why bother getting married?>>>>>> Your call. My own attitude towards such things is "trust, but verify" and I>>> don't see how taking precautions when people are civil has anything to do>>> with "why bother getting married.">>>> Signing a fair prenup simply means that neither party intends to steal>> the other's money, that's all. It does not presuppose that you are>> intending to divorce. You are making sure that the other side does not>> want to take you for a ride.>> If you're not indending to divorce, why a pre-nup? Isn't the only thing a> pre-nup addresses is asset division after a divorce (and what is, or isn't> included)? No, it can also include what happens to assets in case of your death, which is important if you have children and want them to inherit something. That's called a "will". You are wrong, there are numerous laws that give spouses a huge advantage in receiving inheritance even if the will says otherwise. For example, I cannot bequeath my marital house to, say, american heart accociation. Besides, you are not God, so you cannot read the other person's mind. Even if you do not intend to divorce, how do you know the other party is not? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in divorce. that's what you think, but you cannot read their mind. How do you know if your fiance is not going to cheat on you in 10 years after the wedding? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in adultery. -Tony PS: I feel sorry for you people who believe marriage is some sort of crap shoot. What a lousy attitude to go into a marriage with. No wonder they fail. Well, myself, I am still married, in fact not that unhappily. Tony, are you still married, and if so, how long have you been married? Any kids?

Yes, almost 19 years, 2 kids

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:rthq41-unv.ln1@mail.sfchat.org...

[] It takes two to get married; it takes only one to get a divorce. People change. You may say "I will never get a divorce" and mean it til the day
you die... but it's never more than 99% certain that a spouse who feels that
way will stick to it.

With my marriage, I am committing myself to never get a divorce and trusting
my spouse's commitment to never get a divorce. Making plans about what to do
in the case of divorce is saying that I have doubts about either my own or
my spouse's commitment. I see it as a very negative thing. A prenup
agreement is saying "I promise to spend my life with you but in case I
don't, this is what we will do." It undermines the promise right from the
start by imagining it failing.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bAqeb.10673$NX3.7236@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net... WhansaMi wrote:> Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives may> change according to circumstances. I think in general that is> correct. Sometimes yes, sometimes NO - because some people stand by their innate principles, and don't succumb to the current fads. Unfortunately your posts come across as saying that people who agree with you are acting from principle and those who disagree are succumbing to fads. You do not seem to grasp that other people might operate from different principles than you do. Jayne

And *some* people don't operate from principles at all, but whatever is "in",
and.or whatever serves their special interests.

Are you saying that there are no dumb principles?

i

In article <E2Ceb.9974$RW4.1409@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Bill in Co wrote: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bAqeb.10673$NX3.7236@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net... WhansaMi wrote:>> Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives may>> change according to circumstances. I think in general that is>> correct. Sometimes yes, sometimes NO - because some people stand by their innate principles, and don't succumb to the current fads. Unfortunately your posts come across as saying that people who agree with you are acting from principle and those who disagree are succumbing to fads. You do not seem to grasp that other people might operate from different principles than you do. Jayne And *some* people don't operate from principles at all, but whatever is "in", and.or whatever serves their special interests.

In article <bleq9b$b8n8b$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: With my marriage, I am committing myself to never get a divorce and trusting my spouse's commitment to never get a divorce. Making plans about what to do in the case of divorce is saying that I have doubts about either my own or my spouse's commitment. I see it as a very negative thing. A prenup agreement is saying "I promise to spend my life with you but in case I don't, this is what we will do." It undermines the promise right from the start by imagining it failing.

will you stay with your spouse if he starts beating you and drinking
heavily and sleeping around and gambling away all your money?

i

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:E2Ceb.9974$RW4.1409@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bAqeb.10673$NX3.7236@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net... WhansaMi wrote:>> Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives may>> change according to circumstances. I think in general that is>> correct. Sometimes yes, sometimes NO - because some people stand by their innate principles, and don't succumb to the current fads. Unfortunately your posts come across as saying that people who agree
with you are acting from principle and those who disagree are succumbing to
fads. You do not seem to grasp that other people might operate from different principles than you do. Jayne And *some* people don't operate from principles at all, but whatever is
"in", and.or whatever serves their special interests.

That may be true of some people. However, you seem to use this as a way to
dismiss whatever views you disagree with. It bothers me that you are not
more respectful of people.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message news:rthq41-unv.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... [] It takes two to get married; it takes only one to get a divorce. People change. You may say "I will never get a divorce" and mean it til the day you die... but it's never more than 99% certain that a spouse who feels that way will stick to it. With my marriage, I am committing myself to never get a divorce and trusting my spouse's commitment to never get a divorce. Making plans about what to do in the case of divorce is saying that I have doubts about either my own or my spouse's commitment. I see it as a very negative thing. A prenup agreement is saying "I promise to spend my life with you but in case I don't, this is what we will do." It undermines the promise right from the start by imagining it failing. Jayne

I agree - this is the way I feel about it too.

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:E2Ceb.9974$RW4.1409@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bAqeb.10673$NX3.7236@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net...> WhansaMi wrote:>>> Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives may>>> change according to circumstances. I think in general that is>>> correct.>> Sometimes yes, sometimes NO - because some people stand by their innate> principles, and don't succumb to the current fads. Unfortunately your posts come across as saying that people who agree with you are acting from principle and those who disagree are succumbing to
fads. You do not seem to grasp that other people might operate from different principles than you do. Jayne And *some* people don't operate from principles at all, but whatever is
"in", and.or whatever serves their special interests. That may be true of some people. However, you seem to use this as a way to dismiss whatever views you disagree with. It bothers me that you are not more respectful of people. Jayne

Respect is a two way street. Here is an example: when someone comes off
implying how ridiculous it is that you still hold on to xyz (old fashioned)
values, and that they "have seen the light", because they are (in their own
minds) presumably so "open minded", or whatever, well then......

(You just have to look around to see what has happened to our society).

"Ignoramus28710" <ignoramus28710@NOSPAM.28710.invalid> wrote in message
news:bler2o$dqu$0@pita.alt.net...

[presumably addressing me (Jayne)]
Are you saying that there are no dumb principles?

There may be, but I am reluctant to judge. There is a large subjective
element in people's principles so it is hard to derive objective criteria
for evaluating them. One criterion might be the sorts of actions that are
based on the principle. I do have problems with principles that consistently
lead people to harm themselves and others. However, I would not call such
principles "dumb"; I would call them "harmful".

Jayne

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
FWIW, I'm mixed about pre-nups. I'm neither here nor there. I don't findthem offensive, nor do I find them necessary in many instances. When my DHand I were married, we had nothing, but we've built up a sizable chunk ofchange together. If something happened to DH and I were to remarry someday,I can't see risking that money that I want earmarked for specific things(e.g., DH's and my children). OTOH, if my SO were fervently opposed, Iimagine I'd examine his reasoning and consider his request. For me, it is all about intimacy, and state of mind. I don't want to be in a long-term relationship with anyone I believe, or am afraid, is "out for my money". I don't want to be long-term with anyone who believes that is *my* motivation --even a little bit-- for being with them. I certainly don't want to marry them! In order for me to attain true intimacy, there has to be complete trust and sharing. And, I don't *want* to settle for anything else. Does that mean that, if my DH died, I'd be less likely to find someone else to make a commitment with? Probably. Does it mean that, if I did find someone, I'd might be more likely to be "taken advantage of"? Possibly. But, I'd rather take those chances, because I'd rather have no relationship at all (or a series of casual flings) than to have a long-term relationship or marriage that doesn't have that level of trust and intimacy. I understand that some people don't share that perspective. But, that is what *I* need in order to commit to a relationship.

I think there are probably people who share that perspective who
_still_ want a pre-nup.

Maybe I misunderstand, but you seem to be suggesting that wanting a
pre-nup implies less trust or intimacy. I don't think this is
necessarily the case.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives may change according to circumstances. I think in general that is correct.

Did you get that from what he actually wrote, or because of your
preconceived ideas of him, you assumed that's what he meant?!

Here is what he wrote, to refresh your memory:

"I would be willing to bet you money that if you had substantial
assets, say
in the 2-5 million dollar range or more, and you were getting married
to a
man that had very little, that you would have him sign a prenup.

You can so no when you don't have that but trust me...if you did...you
would. I know."

Now, really, would you have read the same meaning from this bit if
someone else, say, Sheila, Tony, Bill, or me had written it? Be honest
now :-)
Your point seems to be that you are an exception, and that no circumstances will make your perspective change. Or maybe that people's perspectives don't change according to the circumstances. Or maybe that people's perspectives _shouldn't_ change according to the circumstances. I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

Her point, apparently, was that HER perspective on THAT particular
issue wouldn't change with circumstances. I don't agree with her, and
don't think that she can say with certainty that she won't change her
mind about prenup no matter what the circumstances (in other words I
agree with what you THOUGHT rg said!). However; rg's point is even
more outrageous and rigid than hers. He not only says that people's
perspective change with circumstances, but claims that he KNOWS
exactly how everyone would behave under a particular circumstances (in
this case having couple of millions of dollars)! No room for variation
in people's personalities, values, priorities, principles, etc.
Everyone would do exactly as he would under those conditions.

It is true that many people falsely assume certain things about
themselves because they haven't been in circumstances to prove them
wrong, but I find it amusing that some people cannot comprehend that
others may actually behave differently than them under similar
circumstances - hence commonly heard statements like "don't judge me
because you would've done the same if you were in my shoes". Well,
maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I may not know for sure, but you know
even less!

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:msCeb.10038$RW4.2600@newsread4.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:E2Ceb.9974$RW4.1409@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

[] And *some* people don't operate from principles at all, but whatever is "in", and.or whatever serves their special interests. That may be true of some people. However, you seem to use this as a way to dismiss whatever views you disagree with. It bothers me that you are not more respectful of people. Jayne Respect is a two way street. Here is an example: when someone comes
off implying how ridiculous it is that you still hold on to xyz (old
fashioned) values, and that they "have seen the light", because they are (in their
own minds) presumably so "open minded", or whatever, well then......

I don't like that either. However, on this newsgroup, the person that I
notice being the most dismissive of others is you.
(You just have to look around to see what has happened to our society).

I am finding it increasingly boring and annoying to see you making these
statements. Did you know that there are documents, going back for thousands
of years, in which the authors decry the degenerate morals of "these modern
times"? It is the claim of every older generation throughout recorded
history. Every society has its moral strengths and its weaknesses. And
every society has people who would rather point fingers at others than take
responsibility for their own lives and examine what they can change about
themselves.

Stop talking about society, Bill. Look at yourself.

Jayne

"Ignoramus28710" <ignoramus28710@NOSPAM.28710.invalid> wrote in message
news:bler4g$dqu$1@pita.alt.net... In article <bleq9b$b8n8b$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne
Kulikauskas wrote: With my marriage, I am committing myself to never get a divorce and
trusting my spouse's commitment to never get a divorce. Making plans about what
to do in the case of divorce is saying that I have doubts about either my own
or my spouse's commitment. I see it as a very negative thing. A prenup agreement is saying "I promise to spend my life with you but in case I don't, this is what we will do." It undermines the promise right from
the start by imagining it failing. will you stay with your spouse if he starts beating you and drinking heavily and sleeping around and gambling away all your money?

It is hard to answer this as a hypothetical question since I have been
married for 23 years to a man whom I cannot imagine doing any of those
things. If he experienced such a dramatic personality change at this point
I would assume that something was seriously wrong with him (probably with a
physiological basis) and would be working on getting him help. I expect
that I would be too concerned with my husband's illness to give much thought
to divorce.

I hope that if I had married a man who did all those things that I would be
true to my principles and not divorce him. I don't know if I could be that
strong, but that is what I would want to do. I would not live with a man
who beat me, but it is possible to move away without divorcing.

Jayne

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0soex1c6nh.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:

[] Does that mean that, if my DH died, I'd be less likely to find someone
else to make a commitment with? Probably. Does it mean that, if I did find
someone, I'd might be more likely to be "taken advantage of"? Possibly. But,
I'd rather take those chances, because I'd rather have no relationship at
all (or a series of casual flings) than to have a long-term relationship or
marriage that doesn't have that level of trust and intimacy. I understand that some people don't share that perspective. But, that
is what *I* need in order to commit to a relationship. I think there are probably people who share that perspective who _still_ want a pre-nup. Maybe I misunderstand, but you seem to be suggesting that wanting a pre-nup implies less trust or intimacy. I don't think this is necessarily the case.

For some people it does imply that. That is what a prenup would mean for me
and that is why I couldn't do it.

Jayne

For some people it does imply that. That is what aprenup would mean for me and that is why I couldn'tdo it.

Well, I'm firmly of the belief that a prenup can be
taken both ways. That the one who wants a prenup *might*
not trust the one they're marrying to do the right
thing and that the one who doesn't *might* be moti-
vated more by finances than by love.

One thing that I haven't seen discussed thoroughly,
just mentioned a time or two, are the circumstances
where a prenup is to protect someone else. As examples,
what if one person is in a business partnership with
another or one person is the sole or major financial
provider for a parent or one person has children from
a previous marriage. While I am perfectly fine with
taking risks for myself, I'm not so willing to take
risks for someone else. And I'm also quite aware that
just because *I* have a personal loyalty and feeling
of responsibility/obligation towards a partner/parent/
child, it's not going to necessarily follow that a
prospective spouse will feel the same loyal/responsi-
bility/obligation or feel it to the same extent I do.

Tracey

WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com> wrote:
Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives maychange according to circumstances. I think in general that iscorrect. No no no no no. That is my point. He didn't say "*may*". He didn't say "possibly". He said he KNEW --not even that HE would, but that *I* would.

I read it the way you did, Sheila. Not to put kerosene on the fire, but
just to let you know not everyone sees it differently than you.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
If you're not indending to divorce, why a pre-nup? Isn't the only thing a pre-nup addresses is asset division after a divorce (and what is, or isn't included)?

It also controls assets when one spouse dies. Most states automatically
entitle a spouse to a certain portion of the estate, whatever the will
may say. If the dead spouse had children from before the marriage, this
may not be what he wants.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
Or are you one of those people who believe that divorces "just happen", like pregnancies "just happen". :P

Yeah, I'd say those are about equivalent. You can take all the normal
precautions and still end up pregnant or divorced.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:15:31 -0700, Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Ignoramus16314 <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote: > Besides, you are not God, so you cannot read the other person's > mind. Even if you do not intend to divorce, how do you know the other > party is not? Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in divorce. Who CLAIMS not to. Or more properly, claims not to hold with the practice: it exists, and disbelieving it won't make it go away. It'll make it go away *for you*.

Hmm. Not believing in something makes it go away? I don't think so.

If I don't believe in death I'll live forever?

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:msCeb.10038$RW4.2600@newsread4.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:E2Ceb.9974$RW4.1409@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... []> And *some* people don't operate from principles at all, but> whatever is "in",> and.or whatever serves their special interests. That may be true of some people. However, you seem to use this as a way to dismiss whatever views you disagree with. It bothers me that you are not more respectful of people. Jayne Respect is a two way street. Here is an example: when someone comes off implying how ridiculous it is that you still hold on to xyz (old fashioned) values, and that they "have seen the light", because they are (in their own minds) presumably so "open minded", or whatever, well then...... I don't like that either. However, on this newsgroup, the person that I notice being the most dismissive of others is you.

Well, maybe that's because I hold onto those old fashioned values so
vigorously.
(You just have to look around to see what has happened to our society). I am finding it increasingly boring and annoying to see you making these statements. Did you know that there are documents, going back for thousands of years, in which the authors decry the degenerate morals of "these modern times"? It is the claim of every older generation throughout recorded history. Every society has its moral strengths and its weaknesses.

Then tell me about the moral strength of our current society, in terms of what
has recently happened to the "family unit" (that is, where you can still find
it - meaning a HUSBAND and a WIFE who are still THERE for their children - not
a single or no parent family, with daycare/childcare pawnoffs, and/or no care).

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:msCeb.10038$RW4.2600@newsread4.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:> "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:E2Ceb.9974$RW4.1409@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... []>> And *some* people don't operate from principles at all, but>> whatever is "in",>> and.or whatever serves their special interests.>> That may be true of some people. However, you seem to use this as> a way to dismiss whatever views you disagree with. It bothers me that> you are not more respectful of people.>> Jayne Respect is a two way street. Here is an example: when someone comes off implying how ridiculous it is that you still hold on to xyz (old fashioned) values, and that they "have seen the light", because they are (in their own minds) presumably so "open minded", or whatever, well then...... I don't like that either. However, on this newsgroup, the person that I notice being the most dismissive of others is you. Well, maybe that's because I hold onto those old fashioned values so vigorously.

Isn't respect towards others an old fashioned value? Or am I confused?

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:msCeb.10038$RW4.2600@newsread4.news.pas.earth link.net...> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>> "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message>> news:E2Ceb.9974$RW4.1409@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... []>>> And *some* people don't operate from principles at all, but>>> whatever is "in",>>> and.or whatever serves their special interests.>>>> That may be true of some people. However, you seem to use this as>> a way to dismiss whatever views you disagree with. It bothers me that>> you are not more respectful of people.>>>> Jayne>> Respect is a two way street. Here is an example: when someone comes
off> implying how ridiculous it is that you still hold on to xyz (old
fashioned)> values, and that they "have seen the light", because they are (in their
own> minds) presumably so "open minded", or whatever, well then...... I don't like that either. However, on this newsgroup, the person that I notice being the most dismissive of others is you. Well, maybe that's because I hold onto those old fashioned values so vigorously. Isn't respect towards others an old fashioned value? Or am I confused?

Respect is a two way street. (You are confused, or more accurately), you missed
part of it. :-)

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Respect is a two way street. (You are confused, or more accurately), you missed part of it. :-)

You can ditch the smiley face while you are trying to imply I'm
insufficiently respectful to deserve respect from you.

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Respect is a two way street. (You are confused, or more accurately), you missed part of it. :-) You can ditch the smiley face while you are trying to imply I'm insufficiently respectful to deserve respect from you.

You haven't been any more respectful than I have. You are as hard headed, if
not more so, than I am, Doug. Or rg, for that matter.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Respect is a two way street. (You are confused, or more accurately), you missed part of it. :-) You can ditch the smiley face while you are trying to imply I'm insufficiently respectful to deserve respect from you. You haven't been any more respectful than I have. You are as hard headed, if not more so, than I am, Doug. Or rg, for that matter.

I think I have been more respectful than you, though the truth is your
manner has eroded that. But that isn't my point. If you are calling
me disrespectful, why pretend you are joking by adding a smiley face?

By the way, there is a big difference between being stubborn and being
disrespectful. I'm not certain you can understand that right now.

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:> Respect is a two way street. (You are confused, or more accurately), you> missed part of it. :-) You can ditch the smiley face while you are trying to imply I'm insufficiently respectful to deserve respect from you. You haven't been any more respectful than I have. You are as hard headed, if not more so, than I am, Doug. Or rg, for that matter. I think I have been more respectful than you, though the truth is your manner has eroded that.

Not really. You just disguise it better. I'm more direct - blunt.
But that isn't my point. If you are calling me disrespectful, why pretend you are joking by adding a smiley face?

Fine.
By the way, there is a big difference between being stubborn and being disrespectful. I'm not certain you can understand that right now.

Often the two go hand in hand. We should BOTH take a look at ourselves.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SQEeb.10177$RW4.7075@newsread4.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:msCeb.10038$RW4.2600@newsread4.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:> "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:E2Ceb.9974$RW4.1409@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... []>> And *some* people don't operate from principles at all, but>> whatever is "in",>> and.or whatever serves their special interests.>> That may be true of some people. However, you seem to use this as> a way to dismiss whatever views you disagree with. It bothers me that> you are not more respectful of people.>> Jayne Respect is a two way street. Here is an example: when someone comes
off implying how ridiculous it is that you still hold on to xyz (old
fashioned) values, and that they "have seen the light", because they are (in their
own minds) presumably so "open minded", or whatever, well then...... I don't like that either. However, on this newsgroup, the person that I notice being the most dismissive of others is you. Well, maybe that's because I hold onto those old fashioned values so vigorously.

My values tend to be similar to yours as far as what I apply to myself
personally. I am a pretty old fashioned person in many ways. But I still
manage to be open to the idea that people who disagree with me might still
be worth listening to.
(You just have to look around to see what has happened to our society). I am finding it increasingly boring and annoying to see you making these statements. Did you know that there are documents, going back for
thousands of years, in which the authors decry the degenerate morals of "these
modern times"? It is the claim of every older generation throughout recorded history. Every society has its moral strengths and its weaknesses. Then tell me about the moral strength of our current society, in terms of
what has recently happened to the "family unit" (that is, where you can still
find it - meaning a HUSBAND and a WIFE who are still THERE for their children -
not a single or no parent family, with daycare/childcare pawnoffs, and/or no
care).

The "good old days" came primarily at the expense of women. Women were
limited in their choices, trapped in their roles and not taken seriously as
people. They stayed with their children whether they were suited to that
task or not. Marriages were probably not any better then, but economically
dependent women had to stay in them. This is a much better time to be a
woman.

The institutions (religion, marriage, etc) that played a role in oppressing
so many women cannot go on the way they were. Some people say they should
be abolished altogether. Others see something salvageable. One thing that
is not going to happen is that we are not going to put the toothpaste back
in the tube. Whatever changes need to be made in society need to start with
the current reality, not be based on nostalgia.

Jayne

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in divorce. Who CLAIMS not to. Or more properly, claims not to hold with the practice: it exists, and disbelieving it won't make it go away. It'll make it go away *for you*.

Well short of legislating divorce out of existence, or moving to a country
where it's a lot harder, you could still get unlucky with a partner who
claimed on thing and then later did another.

Duplicates snipped.

On 01 Oct 2003 10:43:39 -0700,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:15:31 -0700, Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:> Ignoramus16314 <ignoramus16314@NOSPAM.16314.invalid> wrote:> > Besides, you are not God, so you cannot read the other person's> > mind. Even if you do not intend to divorce, how do you know the other> > party is not?>> Well shoot, iggy, I marry someone who doesn't believe in divorce. Who CLAIMS not to. Or more properly, claims not to hold with the practice: it exists, and disbelieving it won't make it go away. It'll make it go away *for you*. Hmm. Not believing in something makes it go away? I don't think so. If I don't believe in death I'll live forever?

You know, I think you are either one of the stupidest human beings I have
ever met or you are being intentionally thick to make some cutesy point.
Which is it?

-Tony

PS: BTW, that was being disrespectful.

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbnlnhh.amp.tony@callisto.jtan.com... she wants more than anything in the world. This can happen. It's
terrible, perhaps a reality such as this one is rarer than the casual divorce (if there is such a thing), but there's no way you can envision the entire future regardless of the person you believe you're marrying. This is why I'm a rabid opponent of no-fault divorce. This poor woman did nothing to him. He should either stick with her, or pay until it hurts.

You know, I totally agree. :-)

Jennifer

>> >Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives maychange according to circumstances. I think in general that iscorrect. No no no no no. That is my point. He didn't say "*may*". He didn't say "possibly". He said he KNEW --not even that HE would, but that *I* would.I read it the way you did, Sheila. Not to put kerosene on the fire, butjust to let you know not everyone sees it differently than you.

Thanks, Emma Anne. Sometimes it is nice to know you aren't hallucinating.
;-)))

Sheila

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:SQEeb.10177$RW4.7075@newsread4.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:msCeb.10038$RW4.2600@newsread4.news.pas.earth link.net...> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>> "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message>> news:E2Ceb.9974$RW4.1409@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... []>>> And *some* people don't operate from principles at all, but>>> whatever is "in",>>> and.or whatever serves their special interests.>>>> That may be true of some people. However, you seem to use this as>> a way to dismiss whatever views you disagree with. It bothers me that>> you are not more respectful of people.>>>> Jayne>> Respect is a two way street. Here is an example: when someone comes
off> implying how ridiculous it is that you still hold on to xyz (old
fashioned)> values, and that they "have seen the light", because they are (in their
own> minds) presumably so "open minded", or whatever, well then...... I don't like that either. However, on this newsgroup, the person that I notice being the most dismissive of others is you. Well, maybe that's because I hold onto those old fashioned values so vigorously. My values tend to be similar to yours as far as what I apply to myself personally. I am a pretty old fashioned person in many ways. But I still manage to be open to the idea that people who disagree with me might still be worth listening to.> (You just have to look around to see what has happened to our society). I am finding it increasingly boring and annoying to see you making these statements. Did you know that there are documents, going back for thousands of years, in which the authors decry the degenerate morals of "these modern times"? It is the claim of every older generation throughout recorded history. Every society has its moral strengths and its weaknesses. Then tell me about the moral strength of our current society, in terms of what has recently happened to the "family unit" (that is, where you can still find it - meaning a HUSBAND and a WIFE who are still THERE for their children - not a single or no parent family, with daycare/childcare pawnoffs, and/or no care). The "good old days" came primarily at the expense of women. Women were limited in their choices, trapped in their roles and not taken seriously as people. They stayed with their children whether they were suited to that task or not. Marriages were probably not any better then, but economically dependent women had to stay in them. This is a much better time to be a woman. The institutions (religion, marriage, etc) that played a role in oppressing so many women cannot go on the way they were. Some people say they should be abolished altogether. Others see something salvageable. One thing that is not going to happen is that we are not going to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Whatever changes need to be made in society need to start with the current reality, not be based on nostalgia. Jayne

But a worse time to be an "active in the kids life" MOTHER. SAHMs
(and families with SAHMs) have it much harder now. And our kids often
get neglected more - I mean in terms of Quality Time, not material
possessions, like 27 inch TVs in each room, or the house on the hill,
etc. Face it - there are only so many hours in a day. The tradeoff
is - has to be - between career and family. But for women who choose
not to be mothers, or part time mothers, this era undoubtably is a
blessing. But I'm worried about the children, that's what I'm worried
about. Who will care for the children? And you can see the effects
in society today.

>> With my marriage, I am committing myself to never get a divorce andtrusting my spouse's commitment to never get a divorce. Making plans about what todo in the case of divorce is saying that I have doubts about either my own or my spouse's commitment. I see it as a very negative thing. A prenup agreement is saying "I promise to spend my life with you but in case I don't, this is what we will do." It undermines the promise right from the start by imagining it failing.will you stay with your spouse if he starts beating you and drinkingheavily and sleeping around and gambling away all your money?i

I'm not sure of your point. For me, I know that a pre-nup does not guarantee
me a sound marriage. I know that, if I had more money than my potential
spouse, that I would be taking a chance in not having a pre-nup.

But, again, for ME (and I'm not saying this is true for everyone, but this is
MY feelings about what I want from life), *if* I marry (and marriage is a
choice I can make, or choose not to make) my expectation of the marriage is
that there will be a full partnership. I want intense intimacy, and part of
that is not withholding from one another, in any way. If I can't have that,
I'll choose not to have a marriage.

I was not always like this. Before I met my DH, I didn't believe I was even
capable of such intimacy and trust. My childhood didn't exactly prepare me for
it. ;-) But, now that I've had it, I really wouldn't settle for anything
different. Again, for me.

Sheila

Emma Anne wrote: >Her point, apparently, was that HER perspective on THAT
particularissue wouldn't change with circumstances. I don't agree with her, anddon't think that she can say with certainty that she won't change hermind about prenup no matter what the circumstances.

Well, this is true enough. One can't say with 100% certainty what one would
do. However, the reason I feel so strongly that I know what I would do is my
own personal desire for a particular type of marriage. If I can't have that
kind of marriage, I'd choose none at all.

Do you see what I mean? I'm trying to imagine myself filthy rich, and with a
guy, and in love. If I feel like I *need* a pre-nup, I'm going to have real
questions about the solidity of the relationship, because, for me, if I am in a
really *good* relationship, I want to share everything about myself. If that
were the case (if I had concerns about this) I stongly believe I would choose
simply not to marry. If, OTOH, I was with someone filthy rich, and he didn't
wish to share everything about himself with me, I wouldn't want to be in a
marriage with him.

So, for me, this isn't about warding off a divorce in the future, it is about
the quality of the relationship in the present.

Sheila

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9UHeb.10369$RW4.4497@newsread4.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

[] The "good old days" came primarily at the expense of women. Women were limited in their choices, trapped in their roles and not taken seriously
as people. They stayed with their children whether they were suited to that task or not. Marriages were probably not any better then, but
economically dependent women had to stay in them. This is a much better time to be a woman. The institutions (religion, marriage, etc) that played a role in
oppressing so many women cannot go on the way they were. Some people say they
should be abolished altogether. Others see something salvageable. One thing
that is not going to happen is that we are not going to put the toothpaste
back in the tube. Whatever changes need to be made in society need to start
with the current reality, not be based on nostalgia. Jayne But a worse time to be an "active in the kids life" MOTHER. SAHMs (and families with SAHMs) have it much harder now. And our kids often get neglected more - I mean in terms of Quality Time, not material possessions, like 27 inch TVs in each room, or the house on the hill, etc. Face it - there are only so many hours in a day. The tradeoff is - has to be - between career and family. But for women who choose not to be mothers, or part time mothers, this era undoubtably is a blessing. But I'm worried about the children, that's what I'm worried about. Who will care for the children? And you can see the effects in society today.

I am a SAHM with 7 children. You don't need to tell me about it. Yes, some
things are worse now and some things are better. Going on and on about how
awful things are these days is neither very insightful nor productive.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:9UHeb.10369$RW4.4497@newsread4.news.pas.earth link.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: [] The "good old days" came primarily at the expense of women. Women were limited in their choices, trapped in their roles and not taken seriously as people. They stayed with their children whether they were suited to that task or not. Marriages were probably not any better then, but economically dependent women had to stay in them. This is a much better time to be a woman. The institutions (religion, marriage, etc) that played a role in oppressing so many women cannot go on the way they were. Some people say they should be abolished altogether. Others see something salvageable. One thing
that is not going to happen is that we are not going to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Whatever changes need to be made in society need to start
with the current reality, not be based on nostalgia. Jayne But a worse time to be an "active in the kids life" MOTHER. SAHMs (and families with SAHMs) have it much harder now. And our kids often get neglected more - I mean in terms of Quality Time, not material possessions, like 27 inch TVs in each room, or the house on the hill, etc. Face it - there are only so many hours in a day. The tradeoff is - has to be - between career and family. But for women who choose not to be mothers, or part time mothers, this era undoubtably is a blessing. But I'm worried about the children, that's what I'm worried about. Who will care for the children? And you can see the effects in society today. I am a SAHM with 7 children. You don't need to tell me about it. Yes, some things are worse now and some things are better. Going on and on about how awful things are these days is neither very insightful nor productive. Jayne

It IS insightful, for some can not, or choose not to, see it. Somebody has
GOT to see it, or we're going to be headed down a bad path here (IMO).

As to how productive it is, I agree, that is a different matter. I just don't
see a solution on the horizon, which bothers me. You may recall I am a
teacher. I'm doing my best to help out there - I really enjoy working with
these teens, and post teens. But maybe somebody else sees a real solution,
though.

WhansaMi wrote:
Emma Anne wrote: >Her point, apparently, was that HER perspective on THAT particularissue wouldn't change with circumstances. I don't agree with her, anddon't think that she can say with certainty that she won't change hermind about prenup no matter what the circumstances.

Sheila, this was written by me, not Emma Anne.
Well, this is true enough. One can't say with 100% certainty what one would do. However, the reason I feel so strongly that I know what I would do is my own personal desire for a particular type of marriage. If I can't have that kind of marriage, I'd choose none at all.
Do you see what I mean?

Indeed. I can very well understand what you mean. And I didn't mean that you would
change your mind if conditions were different, because I simply don't know that.
You may or may not, depending on how the new circumstances change *you* in general
- and different circumstances do change people in different ways.
I'm trying to imagine myself filthy rich, and with a guy, and in love.

Here is the rub! Again, I am not doubting your words or saying that you won't feel
and do exactly as you say, but you are assuming that changing one aspect of your
life won't affect the rest of *you*, and you don't know that! You say "I'm trying
to imagine myself filthy rich". The thing is that if you are not filthy rich it's
difficult imagine HOW you would be if you were filthy rich! What I mean is that
becoming filthy rich may change you in more ways than you think right now. At this
point you think everything else is going to remain constant, and the only
difference will be a fat bank account. You aren't even thinking about the
possibility that if you become filthy rich your outlook on life may change too, as
may your taste in food or clothes or many other things. All I am saying is that it
is very difficult for us (almost all of us) to accurately determine how we will
feel if the circumstances of our lives changed dramatically.

The reverse is true too. Many people who have never been dirt poor cannot
comprehend how one's outlook on life and values gets shaped by that. Many who
criticize the poor for their mistakes and bad choices often compare them with
themselves, and judge them by their own standards, thinking everything else about
them is the same except that they have less money in the bank. Well, there is
threshold of wealth that if you go bellow your life changes qualitatively, and with
it your values, outlooks, goals, dreams, motivations and almost everything else.
The same is true for the upper level of wealth. There is a large range in the
middle in which the changes in our lives are only quantitative, and I agree with
you that within that range our basic values, principles, desires and dreams stay
constant.

>> Emma Anne wrote: >Her point, apparently, was that HER perspective on THAT particularissue wouldn't change with circumstances. I don't agree with her, anddon't think that she can say with certainty that she won't change hermind about prenup no matter what the circumstances.Sheila, this was written by me, not Emma Anne.

<grimace> Eeek! Sorry!!!!
Well, this is true enough. One can't say with 100% certainty what onewould do. However, the reason I feel so strongly that I know what I would do ismy own personal desire for a particular type of marriage. If I can't havethat kind of marriage, I'd choose none at all. Do you see what I mean?Indeed. I can very well understand what you mean. And I didn't mean that youwouldchange your mind if conditions were different, because I simply don't knowthat.You may or may not, depending on how the new circumstances change *you* ingeneral- and different circumstances do change people in different ways.

Well, this is true. I've been dirt poor (and I DO mean *dirt* poor!). I've
been comfortably middle class. Now we are probably classified as upper middle
class. But, I've never been filthy rich. :-)

However, I'd like to think that, at 43, my values are pretty well established,
and I wouldn't be swayed by money. Moreover, I'm just having a hard time
imagining that I would choose *not* to have the kind of relationship I want,
money or not. If I married a man with whom I didn't have that kind of
relationship, I'd be preventing myself from being able to pursue that kind of
relationship with anyone else.

I think, ultimately, I'd end up with a series of lover/friends, than settle for
a relationship where I felt things were being withheld (by either me OR him)
--- and not only financial, but in other ways as well. I might be wrong.
Money *might* change me in fundamental ways... but, I really think I would miss
that intimacy more than I would miss the money.

Sheila

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
But, again, for ME (and I'm not saying this is true for everyone, but this is MY feelings about what I want from life), *if* I marry (and marriage is a choice I can make, or choose not to make) my expectation of the marriage is that there will be a full partnership. I want intense intimacy, and part of that is not withholding from one another, in any way. If I can't have that, I'll choose not to have a marriage.

That seems sensible, and I feel the same way. But I'm not convinced
that (in general) having a pre-nup excludes that.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On 01 Oct 2003 10:43:39 -0700, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Hmm. Not believing in something makes it go away? I don't think so. If I don't believe in death I'll live forever? You know, I think you are either one of the stupidest human beings I have ever met or you are being intentionally thick to make some cutesy point. Which is it?

I didn't think I was being subtle.

You seem to think that because you don't believe in divorce, you'll
never divorce. (Though you've said you do believe in divorce in the
case of adultery, so that isn't quite consistent.) I expect a large
number of the people getting their first divorce got married not
believing they'd ever divorce.

You also seem to believe that since you don't believe in adultery,
neither you nor your wife will never commit adultery. It is quite
possible that you and your wife _will_ never commit adultery, but
plenty of people who believed they would never do that have ended up
doing it.

So my point is that belief that something won't happen isn't a
guarantee that it really won't happen.
PS: BTW, that was being disrespectful.

I'm used to it from you - it is your standard attitude. A bit sad
really, but what can one do.

WhansaMi wrote:
Well, this is true. I've been dirt poor (and I DO mean *dirt* poor!). I've been comfortably middle class. Now we are probably classified as upper middle class. But, I've never been filthy rich. :-)

You are on the right path. :-)
I think, ultimately, I'd end up with a series of lover/friends, than settle for a relationship where I felt things were being withheld (by either me OR him) --- and not only financial, but in other ways as well.

Of course, that is what makes a relationship worthwhile.
I might be wrong. Money *might* change me in fundamental ways...

I meant more in *subtle* ways than fundamental. Like, for instance, some people may
become more cynical if they are filthy rich (not saying you would). This will
affect the way they view and relate to others. Some others may become republicans
:-)
but, I really think I would miss that intimacy more than I would miss the money.

Sure you would. Money would never become something in par with relationship, but it
can *affect* relationships in more ways than we think it would - and not always in
a negative way either.

ellie_first@yahoo.com (Ellie) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives may change according to circumstances. I think in general that is correct. Did you get that from what he actually wrote, or because of your preconceived ideas of him, you assumed that's what he meant?!

From having read enough of his posts to know what his usual point of
view seems to be. And here his point is consistent. Whether he's
right or not, his point is that Sheila can't really predict what she'd
do if her circumstances changed really radically.
Here is what he wrote, to refresh your memory: "I would be willing to bet you money that if you had substantial assets, say in the 2-5 million dollar range or more, and you were getting married to a man that had very little, that you would have him sign a prenup. You can so no when you don't have that but trust me...if you did...you would. I know." Now, really, would you have read the same meaning from this bit if someone else, say, Sheila, Tony, Bill, or me had written it? Be honest now :-)

Absolutely not.

Bill's usual point of view is "everything is terrible, and anyone who
disagrees with me is a bad, bad person." But unlike Tony or Sheila, I
can't even take him seriously.

Tony's usual point of view is, well, I'm not sure what. But like
Bill, and unlike rg (Sheila is in between), Tony seems sure that his
way is right, and best. Adding to that he is consistently nasty to
me.

Sheila (unlike Tony or Bill, but like rg) is usually pretty sensible,
but sometimes comes off as smug. I.e. "I don't want a pre-nup because
I want so much intimacy that it precludes a pre-nup."
Your point seems to be that you are an exception, and that no circumstances will make your perspective change. Or maybe that people's perspectives don't change according to the circumstances. Or maybe that people's perspectives _shouldn't_ change according to the circumstances. I'm not sure exactly what your point is. Her point, apparently, was that HER perspective on THAT particular issue wouldn't change with circumstances. I don't agree with her, and don't think that she can say with certainty that she won't change her mind about prenup no matter what the circumstances (in other words I agree with what you THOUGHT rg said!). However; rg's point is even more outrageous and rigid than hers.

Yes, that is true.
He not only says that people's perspective change with circumstances, but claims that he KNOWS exactly how everyone would behave under a particular circumstances (in this case having couple of millions of dollars)! No room for variation in people's personalities, values, priorities, principles, etc. Everyone would do exactly as he would under those conditions.

You read in a tiny bit too much perhaps. Not necessarily everyone
would do exactly as _he_ would do. Just that he knows what Sheila
would do. But of course that is an absurd assertion for him to make.
(More absurd even than for Sheila to assert that she knows for certain
what she would do in radically different circumstances.)
It is true that many people falsely assume certain things about themselves because they haven't been in circumstances to prove them wrong, but I find it amusing that some people cannot comprehend that others may actually behave differently than them under similar circumstances - hence commonly heard statements like "don't judge me because you would've done the same if you were in my shoes". Well, maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I may not know for sure, but you know even less!

I agree.

There is an old Monty Python skit where a man-on-the-street is asked
"what would you do if you were Hitler." He pauses to think, and then
answers "well, first I'd annex the Sudetenland,..."

On 01 Oct 2003 21:58:02 GMT,
WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com> wrote: Emma Anne wrote: >Her point, apparently, was that HER perspective on THAT particularissue wouldn't change with circumstances. I don't agree with her, anddon't think that she can say with certainty that she won't change hermind about prenup no matter what the circumstances. Well, this is true enough. One can't say with 100% certainty what one would do. However, the reason I feel so strongly that I know what I would do is my own personal desire for a particular type of marriage. If I can't have that kind of marriage, I'd choose none at all. Do you see what I mean? I'm trying to imagine myself filthy rich, and with a guy, and in love. If I feel like I *need* a pre-nup, I'm going to have real questions about the solidity of the relationship, because, for me, if I am in a really *good* relationship, I want to share everything about myself. If that were the case (if I had concerns about this) I stongly believe I would choose simply not to marry. If, OTOH, I was with someone filthy rich, and he didn't wish to share everything about himself with me, I wouldn't want to be in a marriage with him.

Another point is... To me and my wife, it's only money. It's not really
important. If we have little of it (as we have in the past) we make due
with little. If we have a comfortable amount of it (as we do now) we are
a little more comfortable. We are not defined by our *things*, we are
defined by who we are and our choice to love one another *whatever* life
throws at us.

Would someone with that attitude have a pre-nup? Nope. No need.
So, for me, this isn't about warding off a divorce in the future, it is about the quality of the relationship in the present.

Indeed, and your valuation of the person and the relationship as opposed
to the cash.
Sheila

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:28:38 GMT,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: ellie_first@yahoo.com (Ellie) writes:

<Snip>
Tony's usual point of view is, well, I'm not sure what. But like Bill, and unlike rg (Sheila is in between), Tony seems sure that his way is right, and best. Adding to that he is consistently nasty to me.

I am the foremost authority on my opinion and what is right in my life.
It may not be right for you. You may need a pre-nup, but you are kidding
yourself that you're not planning for divorce. What you are saying is:
"If the marriage goes bad, you don't get my stuff". I'm saying "the
marriage won't go bad". You're saying: "It might". But I have a much
better chance of having a good marriage for the rest of my life if I
believe in and totally trust my wife and my marriage than if I didn't.

And I'm nasty because you seem to be an rg-butt-boy who has pigeonholed me
somehow and I don't like it.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Doug Anderson wrote: ellie_first@yahoo.com (Ellie) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives may change according to circumstances. I think in general that is correct. Did you get that from what he actually wrote, or because of your preconceived ideas of him, you assumed that's what he meant?! From having read enough of his posts to know what his usual point of view seems to be. And here his point is consistent. Whether he's right or not, his point is that Sheila can't really predict what she'd do if her circumstances changed really radically. Here is what he wrote, to refresh your memory: "I would be willing to bet you money that if you had substantial assets, say in the 2-5 million dollar range or more, and you were getting married to a man that had very little, that you would have him sign a prenup. You can so no when you don't have that but trust me...if you did...you would. I know." Now, really, would you have read the same meaning from this bit if someone else, say, Sheila, Tony, Bill, or me had written it? Be honest now :-) Absolutely not. Bill's usual point of view is "everything is terrible, and anyone who disagrees with me is a bad, bad person." But unlike Tony or Sheila, I can't even take him seriously. Tony's usual point of view is, well, I'm not sure what. But like Bill, and unlike rg (Sheila is in between), Tony seems sure that his way is right, and best. Adding to that he is consistently nasty to me. Sheila (unlike Tony or Bill, but like rg) is usually pretty sensible, but sometimes comes off as smug. I.e. "I don't want a pre-nup because I want so much intimacy that it precludes a pre-nup."

This is a bit funny, I must say.... How's the view up there, Doug? Good
Lord...

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:abLeb.478313$cF.163046@rwcrnsc53...

[] Sheila (unlike Tony or Bill, but like rg) is usually pretty sensible, but sometimes comes off as smug. I.e. "I don't want a pre-nup because I want so much intimacy that it precludes a pre-nup."

I didn't see anything smug about what she said.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:abLeb.478313$cF.163046@rwcrnsc53... [] Sheila (unlike Tony or Bill, but like rg) is usually pretty sensible, but sometimes comes off as smug. I.e. "I don't want a pre-nup because I want so much intimacy that it precludes a pre-nup." I didn't see anything smug about what she said.

OK. Maybe it is a judgement call.

Basically she said "I wouldn't want a pre-nup because I want more
intimacy than a couple could have as a pre-nup." At least that was
what I think she said. -Hold on, I'll check:

here it is, or something like it the reason she'd not want a pre-nup:
I'd rather take those chances, because I'd rather have norelationship at all (or a series of casual flings) than to have along-term relationship or marriage that doesn't have that level oftrust and intimacy.

So I _think_ she is saying that a relationship with a pre-nup can't
have the highest level of trust or intimacy.

But I notice that she also equates a pre-nup with "witholding assets"
so it may be that she is confused about the possible variety of
pre-nuptial agreements.

Doug

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:28:38 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: ellie_first@yahoo.com (Ellie) writes: <Snip> Tony's usual point of view is, well, I'm not sure what. But like Bill, and unlike rg (Sheila is in between), Tony seems sure that his way is right, and best. Adding to that he is consistently nasty to me. I am the foremost authority on my opinion and what is right in my life. It may not be right for you. You may need a pre-nup, but you are kidding yourself that you're not planning for divorce.

I don't need a pre-nup, and don't have one. But I don't see anything
wrong with one, and it is no more planning for divorce than having
health insurance is planning for bladder cancer.
What you are saying is: "If the marriage goes bad, you don't get my stuff". I'm saying "the marriage won't go bad". You're saying: "It might".

Right, it might.
But I have a much better chance of having a good marriage for the rest of my life if I believe in and totally trust my wife and my marriage than if I didn't.

Yep, you do. And none of those things precludes a pre-nup, at least
not for some people. Maybe for you.
And I'm nasty because you seem to be an rg-butt-boy who has pigeonholed me somehow and I don't like it.

No, that isn't why you are nasty to me. You started being nasty
before rg came onto the scene, so don't blame it on him (as if it
excuses anything, anyway!). And I see you are again here, but that
isn't surprising, once again.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6PNeb.477413$Oz4.314751@rwcrnsc54... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:abLeb.478313$cF.163046@rwcrnsc53... [] Sheila (unlike Tony or Bill, but like rg) is usually pretty sensible, but sometimes comes off as smug. I.e. "I don't want a pre-nup because I want so much intimacy that it precludes a pre-nup." I didn't see anything smug about what she said. OK. Maybe it is a judgement call. Basically she said "I wouldn't want a pre-nup because I want more intimacy than a couple could have as a pre-nup." At least that was what I think she said. -Hold on, I'll check: here it is, or something like it the reason she'd not want a pre-nup:I'd rather take those chances, because I'd rather have norelationship at all (or a series of casual flings) than to have along-term relationship or marriage that doesn't have that level oftrust and intimacy. So I _think_ she is saying that a relationship with a pre-nup can't have the highest level of trust or intimacy.
[]

It seems to me that she has stressed that this is how it is *for her* rather
than saying that nobody with a prenup can have intimacy. I've had the
impression that she is saying pretty much the same thing that I am saying.
And I know that I'm not being smug. <g>

Jayne

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sTNeb.199192$mp.122017@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att. net...

[] No, that isn't why you are nasty to me. You started being nasty before rg came onto the scene, so don't blame it on him (as if it excuses anything, anyway!). And I see you are again here, but that isn't surprising, once again.

What would it take to get this group functioning with less nastiness and
disrespect? I don't think that any of the regular posters wants constant
bickering. (Well, Kendrick maybe. <g>) We are always talking about how
married couples can communicate better; shouldn't we be able to communicate
better with each other? If anybody has any ideas, I'd be glad to do what I
can to help.

Jayne

Tony Miller wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:28:38 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: ellie_first@yahoo.com (Ellie) writes: <Snip> Tony's usual point of view is, well, I'm not sure what. But like Bill, and unlike rg (Sheila is in between), Tony seems sure that his way is right, and best. Adding to that....

Adding to that...
....Doug also seems sure his way is best. YOU just won't (or can't?) admit
it, Doug. See, that's one big difference between us.

Doug Anderson wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:28:38 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: ellie_first@yahoo.com (Ellie) writes: <Snip> Tony's usual point of view is, well, I'm not sure what. But like Bill, and unlike rg (Sheila is in between), Tony seems sure that his way is right, and best. Adding to that he is consistently nasty to me. I am the foremost authority on my opinion and what is right in my life. It may not be right for you. You may need a pre-nup, but you are kidding yourself that you're not planning for divorce. I don't need a pre-nup, and don't have one. But I don't see anything wrong with one, and it is no more planning for divorce than having health insurance is planning for bladder cancer.

It's not at all the same thing. I'm sorry you see it that way. To me, that
is a very cold and jaded viewpoint - or should I say, expectation. Like a
business transaction.

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:abLeb.478313$cF.163046@rwcrnsc53... [] Sheila (unlike Tony or Bill, but like rg) is usually pretty sensible, but sometimes comes off as smug. I.e. "I don't want a pre-nup because I want so much intimacy that it precludes a pre-nup." I didn't see anything smug about what she said. Jayne

Me either. But sometimes some of us don't see ourselves very objectively, I
think.

Doug Anderson wrote: "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:abLeb.478313$cF.163046@rwcrnsc53... [] Sheila (unlike Tony or Bill, but like rg) is usually pretty sensible, but sometimes comes off as smug. I.e. "I don't want a pre-nup because I want so much intimacy that it precludes a pre-nup." I didn't see anything smug about what she said. OK. Maybe it is a judgement call. Basically she said "I wouldn't want a pre-nup because I want more intimacy than a couple could have as a pre-nup." At least that was what I think she said. -Hold on, I'll check: here it is, or something like it the reason she'd not want a pre-nup: I'd rather take those chances, because I'd rather have no relationship at all (or a series of casual flings) than to have a long-term relationship or marriage that doesn't have that level of trust and intimacy.

I agree with this, and the (possible) irony is, I'm the one getting the divorce
here. But maybe I'm an incurable romantic and idealist at heart, (well, at
least on some occasions).

> "kellya" <kellya@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message news:3f7869cb$1_3@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com... Hi! I am final year journalism student doing a feature on prenups. I am looking for men/women who have signed or are thinking about signing a prenup agreement, or people who have refused to sign a prenup, who wouldn;t mind answering a few questions It would take 10 mins of your time, and would make me a very happy person! Thanks Kelly

My husband and I married when we were young and I don't think either of us
had heard of the concept of prenups and there'd have been no point to having
one then as we had next-to-no assets, anyway.

However, I have children and if I was ever widowed/divorced and wanted to
remarry I would want a prenup to protect my children's interests. In the
event of the death of either spouse the other will inherit all assets with
the children being provided for by the surviving parent in whatever way he
or she sees best. We have agreed that the arrangements will be formalised by
a new will but any later remarriage will require extra legal work to ensure
that the dead parent's assets will eventually go to the children plus a good
proportion of the surviving parent's assets.

Aside from that I can see the point of prenups when there are complex family
and or trust monies involved but I'm used to sharing all our income and
assets and it would seem strange/uncomfortable/wrong to me not to continue
in that way.

Tai

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:sTNeb.199192$mp.122017@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att. net... [] No, that isn't why you are nasty to me. You started being nasty before rg came onto the scene, so don't blame it on him (as if it excuses anything, anyway!). And I see you are again here, but that isn't surprising, once again. What would it take to get this group functioning with less nastiness and disrespect? I don't think that any of the regular posters wants constant bickering. (Well, Kendrick maybe. <g>) We are always talking about how married couples can communicate better; shouldn't we be able to communicate better with each other? If anybody has any ideas, I'd be glad to do what I can to help. Jayne

It would help if some of the bricks in here (incl me) would (at least
occasionally) admit they just might be wrong, and be more respectful of other
people's viewpoints. Yes, I am included. But so far, I'm the only one who
will go on record here saying so. So that would be a start, I think.

Emma Anne wrote: kellya <kellya@aladdinscave.net> wrote: Hi! I am final year journalism student doing a feature on prenups. I am looking for men/women who have signed or are thinking about signing a prenup agreement, or people who have refused to sign a prenup, who wouldn;t mind answering a few questions It would take 10 mins of your time, and would make me a very happy person! A prenup is the only way that people who already have children can insure that each spouse's own children get their parent's assets. Otherwise the children of the last one to die lucks out monetarily.

I'm glad you mentioned this Emma Anne. I was really surprised that this
important aspect received so little comment - although I admit I've had to
skim the thread to catch up and someone else may have gone into it in more
detail.

Tai

Tony Miller wrote:
And I'm nasty because you seem to be an rg-butt-boy who has pigeonholed me somehow and I don't like it.

Uh, Tony....

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

You don't sound anything like the Christian gentlemen I know.

Tai

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) wrote in message news:<20031001184446.18844.00000190@mb-m15.aol.com>... Emma Anne wrote: >Her point, apparently, was that HER perspective on THAT particular >issue wouldn't change with circumstances. I don't agree with her, and >don't think that she can say with certainty that she won't change her >mind about prenup no matter what the circumstances.Sheila, this was written by me, not Emma Anne. <grimace> Eeek! Sorry!!!! Well, this is true enough. One can't say with 100% certainty what one would do. However, the reason I feel so strongly that I know what I would do is my own personal desire for a particular type of marriage. If I can't have that kind of marriage, I'd choose none at all. Do you see what I mean?Indeed. I can very well understand what you mean. And I didn't mean that youwouldchange your mind if conditions were different, because I simply don't knowthat.You may or may not, depending on how the new circumstances change *you* ingeneral- and different circumstances do change people in different ways. Well, this is true. I've been dirt poor (and I DO mean *dirt* poor!). I've been comfortably middle class. Now we are probably classified as upper middle class. But, I've never been filthy rich. :-) However, I'd like to think that, at 43, my values are pretty well established, and I wouldn't be swayed by money. Moreover, I'm just having a hard time imagining that I would choose *not* to have the kind of relationship I want, money or not. If I married a man with whom I didn't have that kind of relationship, I'd be preventing myself from being able to pursue that kind of relationship with anyone else. I think, ultimately, I'd end up with a series of lover/friends, than settle for a relationship where I felt things were being withheld (by either me OR him) --- and not only financial, but in other ways as well. I might be wrong. Money *might* change me in fundamental ways... but, I really think I would miss that intimacy more than I would miss the money. Sheila

I agree that rg can't possibly know for sure that a lot of money will
guarantee that a person will want a prenup, but there are assets which
are worth far more than their market value. Those are things a person
may feel obligated to protect, - a family business for example.

Another example may have some application in my future. My parents
bought some water front property back in the late 50's. My siblings
and I grew up there. It's been a gathering place for our large
extended family for decades. My parents love to entertain. Relatives
and friends of the family drop by almost daily, -especially in the
summer. It is my parents wish that this property remain in the family
and continue to function as a gathering place.

It's not inconceivable that I will someday have a significant
financial stake in that property. If something were to happen to my
current wife, and I decided to remarry, it would put me in something
of a quandry. I still don't think I'd want a prenup, but on the other
hand, I know I would feel some obligation to my family to protect that
asset. If this property had been in the family for generations, I
think the obligation would be even stronger.

Emma Anne wrote: WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com> wrote: Well, I think rg's point is, as usual, that people's perspectives may change according to circumstances. I think in general that is correct. No no no no no. That is my point. He didn't say "*may*". He didn't say "possibly". He said he KNEW --not even that HE would, but that *I* would. I read it the way you did, Sheila. Not to put kerosene on the fire, but just to let you know not everyone sees it differently than you.

And me. There's something rather infuriating about someone smugly asserting
they know how you'll react in a given situation. I don't know why rg thought
he could get away with that piece of presumption!

Tai

Jingle Bells wrote:

<snip>
Another example may have some application in my future. My parents bought some water front property back in the late 50's. My siblings and I grew up there. It's been a gathering place for our large extended family for decades. My parents love to entertain. Relatives and friends of the family drop by almost daily, -especially in the summer. It is my parents wish that this property remain in the family and continue to function as a gathering place. It's not inconceivable that I will someday have a significant financial stake in that property. If something were to happen to my current wife, and I decided to remarry, it would put me in something of a quandry. I still don't think I'd want a prenup, but on the other hand, I know I would feel some obligation to my family to protect that asset. If this property had been in the family for generations, I think the obligation would be even stronger.

This is precisely the sort of situation I was thinking about. Also, whatever
you did would have to work within the specific framework of family law where
you live and it's likely that would differ within this group of people since
we don't all live in the same country under the same laws. Our family law is
at the federal level and suspect that isn't true for everyone posting here.

Tai

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:6PNeb.477413$Oz4.314751@rwcrnsc54... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:abLeb.478313$cF.163046@rwcrnsc53... [] > Sheila (unlike Tony or Bill, but like rg) is usually pretty sensible, > but sometimes comes off as smug. I.e. "I don't want a pre-nup because > I want so much intimacy that it precludes a pre-nup." I didn't see anything smug about what she said. OK. Maybe it is a judgement call. Basically she said "I wouldn't want a pre-nup because I want more intimacy than a couple could have as a pre-nup." At least that was what I think she said. -Hold on, I'll check: here it is, or something like it the reason she'd not want a pre-nup:I'd rather take those chances, because I'd rather have norelationship at all (or a series of casual flings) than to have along-term relationship or marriage that doesn't have that level oftrust and intimacy. So I _think_ she is saying that a relationship with a pre-nup can't have the highest level of trust or intimacy. [] It seems to me that she has stressed that this is how it is *for her* rather than saying that nobody with a prenup can have intimacy. I've had the impression that she is saying pretty much the same thing that I am saying. And I know that I'm not being smug. <g>

No, I don't think you are.

Well, I understood her to be saying *for her* she wants a high level
of intimacy, and *in general* a pre-nup is inconsistent with a high
level of intimacy. But maybe I misunderstood.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:28:38 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:> ellie_first@yahoo.com (Ellie) writes: <Snip>> Tony's usual point of view is, well, I'm not sure what. But like> Bill, and unlike rg (Sheila is in between), Tony seems sure that his> way is right, and best. Adding to that he is consistently nasty to> me. I am the foremost authority on my opinion and what is right in my life. It may not be right for you. You may need a pre-nup, but you are kidding yourself that you're not planning for divorce. I don't need a pre-nup, and don't have one. But I don't see anything wrong with one, and it is no more planning for divorce than having health insurance is planning for bladder cancer. It's not at all the same thing. I'm sorry you see it that way. To me, that is a very cold and jaded viewpoint - or should I say, expectation. Like a business transaction.

But why should you be sorry about it? If someone sees it as the same thing,
fine. Maybe it is to them. If it isn't to you, also fine.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:
It would help if some of the bricks in here (incl me) would (at leastoccasionally) admit they just might be wrong, and be more respectful of otherpeople's viewpoints. Yes, I am included. But so far, I'm the only one whowill go on record here saying so. So that would be a start, I think.

Bill, we haven't agreed on much, but I applaud your candor and
humility here. It takes a certain maturity to admit the possibility
that one might not be infallible. This quality seems to be more and
more rare these days as the political discourse gets more strident.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
From having read enough of his posts to know what his usual point of view seems to be.

Well, I don't think it's wise to attribute to people something they
didn't say, just because you think you know how they think.
Whether he's right or not, his point is that Sheila can't really predict what she'd do if her circumstances changed really radically.

But *his* point wasn't that "Sheila can't really predict what she'd
do", rather "he CAN predict what she would do (and willing to bet
money on it)". Big difference...

I agree with the rest of your post.

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 04:27:46 GMT,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:abLeb.478313$cF.163046@rwcrnsc53... [] Sheila (unlike Tony or Bill, but like rg) is usually pretty sensible, but sometimes comes off as smug. I.e. "I don't want a pre-nup because I want so much intimacy that it precludes a pre-nup." I didn't see anything smug about what she said. OK. Maybe it is a judgement call. Basically she said "I wouldn't want a pre-nup because I want more intimacy than a couple could have as a pre-nup." At least that was what I think she said. -Hold on, I'll check: here it is, or something like it the reason she'd not want a pre-nup:I'd rather take those chances, because I'd rather have norelationship at all (or a series of casual flings) than to have along-term relationship or marriage that doesn't have that level oftrust and intimacy. So I _think_ she is saying that a relationship with a pre-nup can't have the highest level of trust or intimacy.

That's right. A pre-nup plans for divorce, and has an implication that
your spouse plans to unfairly take your money.
But I notice that she also equates a pre-nup with "witholding assets" so it may be that she is confused about the possible variety of pre-nuptial agreements.

I'm sure there are as many different pre-nups as there are lawyers. What
they all says is: "I don't trust you to do the right thing".
Doug

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) wrote in message
Sure you would. Money would never become something in par with relationship,but itcan *affect* relationships in more ways than we think it would - and notalways ina negative way either. Yeah... but what I meant to say was "I think I'd miss the intimacy more than I would FEAR missing the money".

I think I've failed in explaining my thoughts. I didn't mean that your
view of money vs intimacy would change. You seem to think I was saying
you would choose money over the intimate relationship. I am not
talking about choosing between the two. I am sure that no matter how
rich you become you still would value the intimate relationship over
all else - as would many people, including the very rich!

All I am saying is that we cannot know in what ways our overall
outlook will change. In other words, though you (generic you, not you
personally) would be seeking that kind of relationship as much as you
do now, because you are in a different state of mind, you relate to
people differently, and other people relate to you differently. So the
dynamics and process of building a relationship may be different from
a situation where both of you are equally rich or poor or whatever. As
a result, even though you seek the same outcome in terms of the
relationship you may choose a different path to get to it. And then,
of course, you may or may not get it!! Just my opinion...

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:28:31 GMT,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:

<Snip>
It's not at all the same thing. I'm sorry you see it that way. To me, that is a very cold and jaded viewpoint - or should I say, expectation. Like a business transaction. But why should you be sorry about it? If someone sees it as the same thing, fine. Maybe it is to them. If it isn't to you, also fine.

I'm going to ask you a very pointed question here... And I'd like you to
answer it.

When you request that a lover sign a pre-nuptial agreement, aren't you
basically saying that you do not trust them to do the right thing? When
you ask anyone to sign a contract, aren't you basically saying the same
thing?

I have always said that if everyone were honorable, there would be no need
of lawyers. I truly and firmly believe that my wife is honorable. If I
tried to force her to sign a contract, I would be saying that I don't
trust her to do the right thing.

I am with Sheila on this. The level of trust and intimacy I require from
a wife, precludes the use of a legal contract to enforce a promise we made
with each other. A kiss was all it took to seal our contract.

And you might try and tell me that I have a chance of having my wife go
totally nuts, divorce me and take all my money. I couldn't have married
her if I thought there was the slightest chance she wouldn't act in an
honorable way when she was my wife. I'm willing to take that chance.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: Absolutely not. Bill's usual point of view is "everything is terrible, and anyone who disagrees with me is a bad, bad person." But unlike Tony or Sheila, I can't even take him seriously. Tony's usual point of view is, well, I'm not sure what. But like Bill, and unlike rg (Sheila is in between), Tony seems sure that his way is right, and best. Adding to that he is consistently nasty to me. Sheila (unlike Tony or Bill, but like rg) is usually pretty sensible, but sometimes comes off as smug. I.e. "I don't want a pre-nup because I want so much intimacy that it precludes a pre-nup."

I just responded to the beginning part of your post, and said that I
agreed with the rest of it. Just want to make clear that I wasn't
referring to your characterization of people. What I agreed with is
your opinion on how people cannot predict how they would behave under
different circumstances.

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:53:06 -0700,
Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: In my opinion, for that to be accurate, you're missing the word "the possibility of" Same thing. That means that both of you are entertaining the possibility of divorce. Yes. To my mind not doing so is rather pollyanna-ish, but again, if you've successfully found someone with the same "not an option" attitude and you're willing to gamble on their not changing, it's not necessary insurance. Frankly, without the addition of kids from a prior marriage, or very significant assets (which tend to make people a bit crazy), it's not worth it as insurance for most of us.

Totally agreed on this one. I also think that the law that gives half of
what you own to your spouse (as opposed to half of what you built
together) is stupid. But in our house, what's mine is ours, and what's
hers is ours. This is how we chose to handle our finances. I have my
paycheck direct deposited to an account she uses to pay the bills, and I
get an allowance which I don't need to justify the spending thereof.
It takes two to get married; it takes only one to get a divorce. People change. You may say "I will never get a divorce" and mean it til the day you die... but it's never more than 99% certain that a spouse who feels that way will stick to it. This in my opinion needs to be changed. We need to get rid of 'no-fault' divorce and only allow divorce for cause and use the system to punish the one at fault so they have an incentive (hopeful a painful financial one) not to do the same thing to the next unsuspecting spouse. Personally, I think that would radically reduce the number of marriages, but do you know what your attitude really shows? Not that there's something wrong with your opinion, but that the idea of a "one size fits all" marriage contract is obsolete.

And I say if it does, so what. It will make it onto a binding contract
rather than a wimpy "license", which makes getting rid of your wife as
easy as getting rid of your dog (though you can't put your wife "to sleep"
as much as some people I'm sure would love to do that with their ex-s :))
Those who want a marriage on those terms should be welcome to have them, and those who would prefer an association to remain voluntary -- and be disoluble by mutual consent without precontracted conditions should be able to have them as well.

If you want the association to remain voluntary, live together.
I know for a fact, though, that I would not be married today with a system of marriage like that.

I would, and I think that's the difference between you and me. I don't
need an "escape clause" in my marriage. If my wife runs away with another
guy, she should be hurt financially if we divorce. If I do the same
thing, I should pay until it hurts. That's what normally happens to
people who violate contracts.
> Or are you one of those people who believe that divorces "just happen",> like pregnancies "just happen". :P Circumstances where divorce is a reasonable, right, and possibly even best choice end up happening despite the best of intentions. Pregnancies do occasionally happen, even with the best intentions and reasonably effective birth control. When divorce is a reasonable, right, or best choice is when one or both of the spouses are doing something that breaks the covenant. (Or breaks the 'contract' in secular terms) What the "contract" consists of is a private matter between the two parties in the marriage, not a uniform set of legislated causes. You've stated that in your marriage, those things that would cause the contract to be broken are a very limited set of things. Thats fine, and you're welcome to them; assuming there's informed consent by the parties entering into the contract, you're even welcome to try to have the law enforce them _for your own marriage_.

That's an interesting thought. I will think about it. But a standard
real estate contract has basic provisions that are mandated by the state.
IOW, you cannot both choose not to register your deed.

The state has the right to impose whatever restrictions and limitations it
wishes on the marriage contract. And if you don't like it, don't get
married.
You are NOT, however, welcome to push those on anyone else's marriage, or to push for a blanket law preventing other people from defining their own contracts as they see fit.

Of course I can, but the way they're splitting the baby in two in some
states is "the covenant marriage". Do you agree with the idea of a
"covenant marriage" with much greater penalties? I'd be willing to settle
for that and allow those who want a "lesser" marriage to be able to get
one.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with one-size-fits all, and until these things become as they properly should be a matter of private contract rather than legislation, erring on the side of individual liberty is the right, proper and _American_ thing to do.

"Covenant marriage" would take care of the one size fits all.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

ellie_first@yahoo.com (Ellie) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: From having read enough of his posts to know what his usual point of view seems to be. Well, I don't think it's wise to attribute to people something they didn't say, just because you think you know how they think. Whether he's right or not, his point is that Sheila can't really predict what she'd do if her circumstances changed really radically. But *his* point wasn't that "Sheila can't really predict what she'd do", rather "he CAN predict what she would do (and willing to bet money on it)". Big difference...

I disagree. I think his main point _was_ "Sheila can't really predict
what she'd do." He then went overboard in claiming that he _could_
predict it. My re-reading of his post confirms that to me.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news
I disagree. I think his main point _was_ "Sheila can't really predict what she'd do." He then went overboard in claiming that he _could_ predict it. My re-reading of his post confirms that to me.

Really?! How so? Because you had already decided that that must have
been what he meant? I also went back and reread his post. Could you
please enlighten us and show from what part of his post you concluded
the above? That is, from what he WROTE, not your preconceived ideas of
what he thinks - that's totally useless from my point of view.

In fact, to help you come up with a better "interpretation" of what he
really meant I'll include another post of his on the subject. I have
not seen ANY other person in this thread claim with such authority
that they know how precisely people will act under a specific
circumstance. Those who don't think like him live in illusion!! Now,
try as hard as you can to be a little objective and let me know what
you understand from this:

========= Begin quote ========
And I am telling you, that if YOU were the multi-millionaire and you
were in
love with someone and you both wanted to get married, YOU would
require the
prenup.

It is easy and common for people without those assets to think that
"love"
will conquer all and that a prenup is not important and is some kind
of
antithesis to love. And I am telling you to trust me on this one,
that when
you do have that kind of money that you will have advisors that make
sure
you understand this in the most clear terms and a reasonable person
will
require a prenup be signed before marrying someone.

If you or Tony want to believe differently, then you can go ahead and
live
in your personal illusion.

I know differently; not believe.......know.

Enough.
========== End quote ============

Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news I disagree. I think his main point _was_ "Sheila can't really predict what she'd do." He then went overboard in claiming that he _could_ predict it. My re-reading of his post confirms that to me. Really?! How so? Because you had already decided that that must have been what he meant? I also went back and reread his post. Could you please enlighten us and show from what part of his post you concluded the above? That is, from what he WROTE, not your preconceived ideas of what he thinks - that's totally useless from my point of view.

Agreed. So how's the view up there, D? (rhetorical)

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:28:31 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: <Snip> It's not at all the same thing. I'm sorry you see it that way. To me, that is a very cold and jaded viewpoint - or should I say, expectation. Like a business transaction. But why should you be sorry about it? If someone sees it as the same thing, fine. Maybe it is to them. If it isn't to you, also fine. I'm going to ask you a very pointed question here... And I'd like you to answer it. When you request that a lover sign a pre-nuptial agreement, aren't you basically saying that you do not trust them to do the right thing? When you ask anyone to sign a contract, aren't you basically saying the same thing?

Well, I've never done such a thing, so it is a hypothetical.
And as I said before on this thread, it is pretty difficult to imagine
me doing such a thing.

For me to imagine this, there would have to be some physical resource
I controlled (or a business or something) which I was concerned about
protecting in case my future wife, or the nature of our relationship
changed in some unpredictable way.

Having seen people change in unpredictable ways, it seems reasonable
to want to protect against that.

That having been said, when I got married my resources were pretty
slim.
I have always said that if everyone were honorable, there would be no need of lawyers.

A reduced need surely. I don't think there would be no need. Many
lawyers make a living as negotiators/facilitators in a way. That is,
two people (or corporations) come to an agreement, then the lawyers
think of all the eventualities they can, and spell out how the
agreement is to be carried through.

Right now, a non-profit organization which I'm one of the directors of
is buying the site on which it is located. We've been wanting to do
it for years, and have even had the money, but there have been zoning
issues and several other issues to resolve first. We made an
agreement with the owner two years ago about terms, and we hired a
lawyer to write it all down in legalese for us.

I'm very happy to have the written record. It is making the final
negotiations a breeze since we don't _have_ to negotiate, we just look
at what we wrote down two years ago.

So this is an example in which two honorable entities (the corporation
I'm part of and the seller) are benefitting from having employed a
lawyer. Otherwise, we'd waste lots of energy negotiating the fine
points under time pressure (now that all our ducks are in a row, we
need to move fast, when we made the contract, we weren't in a hurry),
each with our own (honorable, but different) interests at heart.

The issue is: two people (or entities) may be honorable and still
have different interestes.
I truly and firmly believe that my wife is honorable. If I tried to force her to sign a contract, I would be saying that I don't trust her to do the right thing.

I understand you feel this way. I even believe you that your wife
feels this way. But I don't conclude that everyone feels this way, or
that everyone _should_ feel this way.
I am with Sheila on this. The level of trust and intimacy I require from a wife, precludes the use of a legal contract to enforce a promise we made with each other. A kiss was all it took to seal our contract.

Ah. Yes, this is where I differ from you and Sheila. For you two
(or you four) a contract may preclude the highest level of trust or
intimacy. I don't buy that for people in general.
And you might try and tell me that I have a chance of having my wife go totally nuts, divorce me and take all my money. I couldn't have married her if I thought there was the slightest chance she wouldn't act in an honorable way when she was my wife. I'm willing to take that chance.

Right. So am I. But I recognize that this chance exists. For
example, during my wife's depression (which I couldn't have predicted
13 years earlier when I married her) she did _not_ behave in a way
that was healthy for her, me or our children. Neither did I.

All this in spite of the previous dozen years of a great marriage, two
honorable people, and good intentions. Does that mean I wish we'd
signed a pre-nup? No, in this case, it really isn't relevant. It
just means that for me a pre-nup isn't about lack of trust, it is
about the possibility (which is always there) that things may change.

Doug

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
I would marry a woman who I trusted to abide by my wishes. (Or I wouldn't get married)

See, I wouldn't. If I wanted obedience, I'd get a dog. I prefer
someone who will listen to my wishes, and take them into account, but
won't place them above herself.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: When you request that a lover sign a pre-nuptial agreement, aren't you basically saying that you do not trust them to do the right thing? When you ask anyone to sign a contract, aren't you basically saying the same thing?

I've seen plenty of divorces; people get acrimonious and irrational. There
are two things you can throw in which seem to make a prenup make sense:

(A) large amounts of money (which also tend to make people irrational --
and greedy, especially if third parties like lawyers are involved)
or
(B) someone else's kids from a prior marriage whether it ended in divorce
or widow(er)hood, or that one had when single, or whatever
I have always said that if everyone were honorable, there would be no need of lawyers. I truly and firmly believe that my wife is honorable. If I tried to force her to sign a contract, I would be saying that I don't trust her to do the right thing.

Although this is not the case here, lawyers will always be necessary: even
if everyone were honorable, there will be cases where there are honest
conflicts of interest which have to get decided by a third party... and
since most people are not good at presenting a case (even in a non-legal
sense of that!), you'd need someone like a lawyer to put the conflicting
interests in legal terms and present them to the judge/third party.
I am with Sheila on this. The level of trust and intimacy I require from a wife, precludes the use of a legal contract to enforce a promise we made with each other. A kiss was all it took to seal our contract.

Then why lobby to change divorce laws?

I have no idea if you're just luckier in who you met and married, or an
optimist. I trust my wife as much as I can trust anyone; probably more than
I do myself, in some ways. I don't have a prenup, and if the marriage ever
breaks down, I don't expect her to try to take me for a ride. But if I DID
have a ton of money I earned, I'd have asked for one -- and we actually
discussed getting one before getting married when it looked like I'd have a
ton of "dot-com" money from stock options from a prior employer.

On 02 Oct 2003 11:55:55 -0700,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:28:31 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: <Snip>> It's not at all the same thing. I'm sorry you see it that way. To me, that> is a very cold and jaded viewpoint - or should I say, expectation. Like a> business transaction. But why should you be sorry about it? If someone sees it as the same thing, fine. Maybe it is to them. If it isn't to you, also fine. I'm going to ask you a very pointed question here... And I'd like you to answer it. When you request that a lover sign a pre-nuptial agreement, aren't you basically saying that you do not trust them to do the right thing? When you ask anyone to sign a contract, aren't you basically saying the same thing? Well, I've never done such a thing, so it is a hypothetical. And as I said before on this thread, it is pretty difficult to imagine me doing such a thing. For me to imagine this, there would have to be some physical resource I controlled (or a business or something) which I was concerned about protecting in case my future wife, or the nature of our relationship changed in some unpredictable way. Having seen people change in unpredictable ways, it seems reasonable to want to protect against that. That having been said, when I got married my resources were pretty slim.

Cha-cha-cha... Nicely danced.

Let me make this a littler simpler. If you borrow $10 from me, and I
force you to sign an IOU, what does that tell you? Am I telling you that
I think "you'll change in an unpredictable way"? Or that I don't trust
you to remember to pay back the loan.
I have always said that if everyone were honorable, there would be no need of lawyers. A reduced need surely. I don't think there would be no need. Many lawyers make a living as negotiators/facilitators in a way. That is, two people (or corporations) come to an agreement, then the lawyers think of all the eventualities they can, and spell out how the agreement is to be carried through. Right now, a non-profit organization which I'm one of the directors of is buying the site on which it is located. We've been wanting to do it for years, and have even had the money, but there have been zoning issues and several other issues to resolve first. We made an agreement with the owner two years ago about terms, and we hired a lawyer to write it all down in legalese for us. I'm very happy to have the written record. It is making the final negotiations a breeze since we don't _have_ to negotiate, we just look at what we wrote down two years ago. So this is an example in which two honorable entities (the corporation I'm part of and the seller) are benefitting from having employed a lawyer. Otherwise, we'd waste lots of energy negotiating the fine points under time pressure (now that all our ducks are in a row, we need to move fast, when we made the contract, we weren't in a hurry), each with our own (honorable, but different) interests at heart. The issue is: two people (or entities) may be honorable and still have different interestes.

Couldn't you have done the same with a secretary?
I truly and firmly believe that my wife is honorable. If I tried to force her to sign a contract, I would be saying that I don't trust her to do the right thing. I understand you feel this way. I even believe you that your wife feels this way. But I don't conclude that everyone feels this way, or that everyone _should_ feel this way.

No, but understand that asking for a pre-nup says that you do not feel
that way. You can feel any way you want. You can even marry someone you
don't trust. Just please don't misunderstand the undercurrents of what a
pre-nup implies.
I am with Sheila on this. The level of trust and intimacy I require from a wife, precludes the use of a legal contract to enforce a promise we made with each other. A kiss was all it took to seal our contract. Ah. Yes, this is where I differ from you and Sheila. For you two (or you four) a contract may preclude the highest level of trust or intimacy. I don't buy that for people in general.

Neither do I. That makes me sad for people in general.
And you might try and tell me that I have a chance of having my wife go totally nuts, divorce me and take all my money. I couldn't have married her if I thought there was the slightest chance she wouldn't act in an honorable way when she was my wife. I'm willing to take that chance. Right. So am I. But I recognize that this chance exists. For example, during my wife's depression (which I couldn't have predicted 13 years earlier when I married her) she did _not_ behave in a way that was healthy for her, me or our children. Neither did I.

"In sickness and in health".
All this in spite of the previous dozen years of a great marriage, two honorable people, and good intentions. Does that mean I wish we'd signed a pre-nup? No, in this case, it really isn't relevant. It just means that for me a pre-nup isn't about lack of trust, it is about the possibility (which is always there) that things may change.

It's a lack of trust in the future person. How's that?
Doug

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Let me make this a littler simpler. If you borrow $10 from me, and I force you to sign an IOU, what does that tell you? Am I telling you that I think "you'll change in an unpredictable way"? Or that I don't trust you to remember to pay back the loan.

For $10, that seems excessive. For significant larger values of $n, I'd say
it isn't, no matter how well you know someone -- it's just the more you
trust them, the higher the value of $n.
Just please don't misunderstand the undercurrents of what a pre-nup implies.

A prenup implies different things for different couples.
Right. So am I. But I recognize that this chance exists. For example, during my wife's depression (which I couldn't have predicted 13 years earlier when I married her) she did _not_ behave in a way that was healthy for her, me or our children. Neither did I. "In sickness and in health".

Not a part of everyone's vows, FWIW.
just means that for me a pre-nup isn't about lack of trust, it is about the possibility (which is always there) that things may change. It's a lack of trust in the future person. How's that?

The future person doesn't exist per se yet.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
Cha-cha-cha... Nicely danced.

And your previous post was so balanced. I responded in kind. You
find it necessary to become insulting.

I answered your question completely and honestly. If it isn't
sufficient for you that's too bad.
Let me make this a littler simpler. If you borrow $10 from me, and I force you to sign an IOU, what does that tell you? Am I telling you that I think "you'll change in an unpredictable way"? Or that I don't trust you to remember to pay back the loan.

This is not relevant to pre-nups. There isn't any "borrowing" going
on.

On the other hand, if I borrow $50,000 from my best friend, we'd be
fools not to spell out and record in writing on what terms I am going
to repay it. But this still has no relevance to pre-nups.
snip description of why lawyers can be useful Couldn't you have done the same with a secretary?

No. We needed someone who understood how purchase contracts and
leases are written, and especially we needed someone with expertise to
think of possible circumstances that we couldn't foresee ourselves.
And we needed someone familiar enough with that sort of transaction to
predict the things we could think about in advance that would smooth
the way when we got to the actual purchase.

It certainly is possible it could have been done by some other kind of
professional, but it required expertise, not the ability to type.
I truly and firmly believe that my wife is honorable. If I tried to force her to sign a contract, I would be saying that I don't trust her to do the right thing. I understand you feel this way. I even believe you that your wife feels this way. But I don't conclude that everyone feels this way, or that everyone _should_ feel this way. No, but understand that asking for a pre-nup says that you do not feel that way. You can feel any way you want. You can even marry someone you don't trust. Just please don't misunderstand the undercurrents of what a pre-nup implies.

No. _You_ asking for a pre-nup means _you_ don't feel that way. But
there are those for whom a pre-nup does not have undercurrents of
mistrust.
I am with Sheila on this. The level of trust and intimacy I require from a wife, precludes the use of a legal contract to enforce a promise we made with each other. A kiss was all it took to seal our contract. Ah. Yes, this is where I differ from you and Sheila. For you two (or you four) a contract may preclude the highest level of trust or intimacy. I don't buy that for people in general. Neither do I. That makes me sad for people in general. And you might try and tell me that I have a chance of having my wife go totally nuts, divorce me and take all my money. I couldn't have married her if I thought there was the slightest chance she wouldn't act in an honorable way when she was my wife. I'm willing to take that chance. Right. So am I. But I recognize that this chance exists. For example, during my wife's depression (which I couldn't have predicted 13 years earlier when I married her) she did _not_ behave in a way that was healthy for her, me or our children. Neither did I. "In sickness and in health".

Why the gratuitous inclusion of this phrase?
All this in spite of the previous dozen years of a great marriage, two honorable people, and good intentions. Does that mean I wish we'd signed a pre-nup? No, in this case, it really isn't relevant. It just means that for me a pre-nup isn't about lack of trust, it is about the possibility (which is always there) that things may change. It's a lack of trust in the future person. How's that?

Not accurate I think. But we obviously disagree, so anything accurate
we'll disagree about.

Doug Anderson wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: Cha-cha-cha... Nicely danced. And your previous post was so balanced. I responded in kind. You find it necessary to become insulting.

Actually, you do this too, Doug, but you just do it more discreetly, and
(apparently) don't even see it. It's still there, though...

Just like that post that Ellie just answered. Let me refresh your memory:

Ellie responded to Doug:
"In fact, to help you come up with a better "interpretation" of what he
really meant I'll include another post of his on the subject. I have
not seen ANY other person in this thread claim with such authority
that they know how precisely people will act under a specific
circumstance. Those who don't think like him live in illusion!! Now,
try as hard as you can to be a little objective and let me know what
you understand from this..."

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: Cha-cha-cha... Nicely danced. And your previous post was so balanced. I responded in kind. You find it necessary to become insulting. Actually, you do this too, Doug, but you just do it more discreetly, and (apparently) don't even see it. It's still there, though... Just like that post that Ellie just answered. Let me refresh your memory:

If you are going to tell me I do something, you may as well actually
quote it. The words below are Ellie's, not mine.

Though I haven't seen them before. My newsserver doesn't always pick
up all the posts.
Ellie responded to Doug: "In fact, to help you come up with a better "interpretation" of what he really meant I'll include another post of his on the subject. I have not seen ANY other person in this thread claim with such authority that they know how precisely people will act under a specific circumstance. Those who don't think like him live in illusion!! Now, try as hard as you can to be a little objective and let me know what you understand from this..."

Reposted for Doug's benefit, at his request...

Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news I disagree. I think his main point _was_ "Sheila can't really predict what she'd do." He then went overboard in claiming that he _could_ predict it. My re-reading of his post confirms that to me. Really?! How so? Because you had already decided that that must have been what he meant? I also went back and reread his post. Could you please enlighten us and show from what part of his post you concluded the above? That is, from what he WROTE, not your preconceived ideas of what he thinks - that's totally useless from my point of view. In fact, to help you come up with a better "interpretation" of what he really meant I'll include another post of his on the subject. I have not seen ANY other person in this thread claim with such authority that they know how precisely people will act under a specific circumstance. Those who don't think like him live in illusion!! Now, try as hard as you can to be a little objective and let me know what you understand from this: ========= Begin quote ======== And I am telling you, that if YOU were the multi-millionaire and you were in love with someone and you both wanted to get married, YOU would require the prenup. It is easy and common for people without those assets to think that "love" will conquer all and that a prenup is not important and is some kind of antithesis to love. And I am telling you to trust me on this one, that
when you do have that kind of money that you will have advisors that make sure you understand this in the most clear terms and a reasonable person will require a prenup be signed before marrying someone. If you or Tony want to believe differently, then you can go ahead and live in your personal illusion. I know differently; not believe.......know. Enough. ========== End quote ============

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Reposted for Doug's benefit, at his request...

Can you say what you were trying to say? The only words you posted
that were mine are here: Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news I disagree. I think his main point _was_ "Sheila can't really predict what she'd do." He then went overboard in claiming that he _could_ predict it. My re-reading of his post confirms that to me.

They seem polite and respectful to me. No sarcasm. I'm saying
directly what I mean. Now I may be _wrong_, but I'm not being rude,
as Tony was. So what is it that you say I am doing here that is the
equivalent to responding with rudeness to something polite?

Or responding disrespectfully to a respectful post (which Ellie's
was).

Doug Anderson wrote:
"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Reposted for Doug's benefit, at his request... Can you say what you were trying to say? The only words you posted that were mine are here: Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news> I disagree. I think his main point _was_ "Sheila can't really predict> what she'd do." He then went overboard in claiming that he _could_> predict it. My re-reading of his post confirms that to me. They seem polite and respectful to me. No sarcasm. I'm saying directly what I mean. Now I may be _wrong_, but I'm not being rude, as Tony was. So what is it that you say I am doing here that is the equivalent to responding with rudeness to something polite? Or responding disrespectfully to a respectful post (which Ellie's was).

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying my response to you was
disrespectful? If so, could you please tell me how? I don't like to be
disrespectful (disagreeable, for sure, but not disrespectful!), and if I come
across that way I'd like to know to correct it next time.

"kellya" <kellya@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message news:<3f7869cb$1_3@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>... Hi! I am final year journalism student doing a feature on prenups. I am looking for men/women who have signed or are thinking about signing a prenup agreement, or people who have refused to sign a prenup, who wouldn;t mind answering a few questions It would take 10 mins of your time, and would make me a very happy person! Thanks Kelly


Everyone else has already weighed in on this, so I guess it's my turn.
I am a divorced mother of two. I went through a nasty divorce/custody
battle with my ex, during which time, with our assets frozen for
several years, I struggled mightily to make ends meet and re-start my
career, after having been a SAHM. Ultimately, we settled on a straight
50-50 split of the assets, and shared 50-50 custody with no child
support exchanging hands.

Today I am doing quite good, have re-built my career, make a decent
salary, and have significant assets, including a house that I just
bought on my own. I have about 7 years to save up for my kids' college
education. I am also just starting to put money away for my
retirement, something I did not have the luxury to do before now.

My previous BF had never been married. This was because he took
marriage very, very seriously, and had not found anyone that he was
confident enough felt the same way. We did discuss marriage, and
possibly having a child together. He felt if we did, I should be the
one to stay at home while he supported us. I questioned this, because
I am responsible to pay 50% of my kids' college educations. He felt
that it was my ex's responsibility, and not really his. I asked if
he'd sign a pre-nup, and he was extremely insulted by the suggestion.
He felt just as many on this thread do, that a pre-nup indicates
you're already planning for the possibility of divorce.

Needless to say, we went our separate ways because we just couldn't
see eye-to-eye on these issues.

Flash forward; now I am recently engaged to a man who is also
divorced, also went through a messy and costly custody/divorce battle,
and also has two children from his first marriage, for which he is
responsible for 50% of their college educations. He has less assets
than I do, makes less money than I do, and pays out child support.

Early on, I raised the issue of a pre-nup. He had no problem at all
with it, and gladly would sign anything I present. He understands
EXACTLY where I am coming from on that one. And he says that it
doesn't matter anyway, because we're not going to get divorced if he
can help it.

For me, I guess you could say the pre-nup idea is a litmus test. The
idea that he'd willingly sign something tells me his heart is in the
right place, that if we ever did divorce, he wouldn't put me through
the wringer, as my ex did. To me, it says very good things about his
character.

In my particular situation, the fact that he would sign a pre-nup says
to me that he *IS* someone to be trusted.

jen

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Reposted for Doug's benefit, at his request... Can you say what you were trying to say? The only words you posted that were mine are here: Ellie wrote: > Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news > >> I disagree. I think his main point _was_ "Sheila can't really predict >> what she'd do." He then went overboard in claiming that he _could_ >> predict it. My re-reading of his post confirms that to me. They seem polite and respectful to me. No sarcasm. I'm saying directly what I mean. Now I may be _wrong_, but I'm not being rude, as Tony was. So what is it that you say I am doing here that is the equivalent to responding with rudeness to something polite? Or responding disrespectfully to a respectful post (which Ellie's was). Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying my response to you was disrespectful?

Not at all. Bill was saying my response to you was rude and or
disrespectful. I don't believe I've _ever_ seen you be rude.

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Reposted for Doug's benefit, at his request... Can you say what you were trying to say? The only words you posted that were mine are here: Ellie wrote: > Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news > >> I disagree. I think his main point _was_ "Sheila can't really predict >> what she'd do." He then went overboard in claiming that he _could_ >> predict it. My re-reading of his post confirms that to me. They seem polite and respectful to me. No sarcasm. I'm saying directly what I mean. Now I may be _wrong_, but I'm not being rude, as Tony was. So what is it that you say I am doing here that is the equivalent to responding with rudeness to something polite? Or responding disrespectfully to a respectful post (which Ellie's was). Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying my response to you was disrespectful? If so, could you please tell me how? I don't like to be disrespectful (disagreeable, for sure, but not disrespectful!), and if I come across that way I'd like to know to correct it next time.

Oops, I see. The parentheses was asserting that your post was
respectful. I see why you were confused by what I wrote.

Bill is asserting that I responded rudely or disrespectfully, which I
don't get.

Doug Anderson wrote:
Not at all. Bill was saying my response to you was rude and or disrespectful. I don't believe I've _ever_ seen you be rude.

Ah, thanks. I just wondered. To me, rude posts totally smere any point that one
wants to get across.

>> >Sure you would. Money would never become something in par withrelationship,but itcan *affect* relationships in more ways than we think it would - and notalways ina negative way either. Yeah... but what I meant to say was "I think I'd miss the intimacy morethan I would FEAR missing the money".I think I've failed in explaining my thoughts. I didn't mean that yourview of money vs intimacy would change. You seem to think I was sayingyou would choose money over the intimate relationship. I am nottalking about choosing between the two. I am sure that no matter howrich you become you still would value the intimate relationship overall else - as would many people, including the very rich!All I am saying is that we cannot know in what ways our overalloutlook will change. In other words, though you (generic you, not youpersonally) would be seeking that kind of relationship as much as youdo now, because you are in a different state of mind, you relate topeople differently, and other people relate to you differently. So thedynamics and process of building a relationship may be different froma situation where both of you are equally rich or poor or whatever. Asa result, even though you seek the same outcome in terms of therelationship you may choose a different path to get to it. And then,of course, you may or may not get it!! Just my opinion...


:-) I guess I'm just having a very hard time imagining my changing in that
way. I *like* the way I feel about this now. I don't know how to put it into
words, but...., this is one of the aspects of me that I value. I think, if I
found myself changing significantly in that way, I'd make changes in my life to
avoid it, rather than simply accepting it.

But, as you say, who knows? Besides, the chances of my becoming filthy rich at
this point in time are rather slim, so I guess I'm just keep plugging along in
the life I have now. :-)))

Sheila

WhansaMi wrote:
But, as you say, who knows? Besides, the chances of my becoming filthy rich at this point in time are rather slim, so I guess I'm just keep plugging along in the life I have now. :-)))

But lets say you DO become filthy rich. :-) Then, if heaven forbid, your private
jet crashes and you die, would you want your husband to have a prenup with his next
wife, so that your assets are secured for your children and not his next wife (or
their future children)?

I am not sure if a will would guarantee that your assets go to your children. Does
anyone know if one can will their assets to their kids instead of spouse, or since
they are community property the spouse is the default owner? If everything that you
own goes to your spouse, then their next spouse would take that if they die, don't
they?

>I've seen plenty of divorces; people get acrimonious and irrational. Thereare two things you can throw in which seem to make a prenup make sense:(A) large amounts of money (which also tend to make people irrational --and greedy, especially if third parties like lawyers are involved)

You know, I guess the other part that makes me feel so sure of my reaction is
my own behavior in my divorce. The ex and I were intial investors in a
start-up ".com-type" company. It had not gone public at the time of our
divorce, but the plans were in the works, and we knew it would in the next
year. We didn't know what the price would be yet, but since we held quite a
few shares, and there were some projections, we, on paper, held just under
$1,000,000.

As I said, I just wanted out of the marriage. I didn't want a long drawn out
court battle. I didn't want the acrimony. I didn't even want the money. I
just wanted *out*. So, I took just under 10% of the stock, and gave him a bit
over 90%, just to be done with it.

So, I have some sense, from my past, that I value some things more than money.


To update, the company did go public, and our stock was worth slightly more
than had been projected. As initial holders, we could only sell a specific
percentage each quarter. I didn't sell to the max---- BIG mistake. I should
have diversified. Anyway, long story short, after about 8 months, the stock
tanked, and I ended up with about 35K, after capital gains and such. And, you
know what... if I went back in time, I'd do it again. Money just isn't worth
it to me.

Sheila

>> But, as you say, who knows? Besides, the chances of my becoming filthyrich at this point in time are rather slim, so I guess I'm just keep plugging alongin the life I have now. :-)))But lets say you DO become filthy rich. :-) Then, if heaven forbid, yourprivatejet crashes and you die, would you want your husband to have a prenup withhis nextwife, so that your assets are secured for your children and not his next wife(ortheir future children)?

Nah. :-)

I trust my DH to do what is right WRT my kids. He trusts me the same way.
Naive? Maybe. But, it is how I feel.

Part of this is that I don't necessarily believe that my kids are *entitled* to
our money. If we grow old together, we plan to spend every cent of it before
we go, so they won't get any beyond the insurance policy anyway, so I'm not so
concerned that they get it if I go first.
I am not sure if a will would guarantee that your assets go to your children.Doesanyone know if one can will their assets to their kids instead of spouse, orsincethey are community property the spouse is the default owner? If everythingthat youown goes to your spouse, then their next spouse would take that if they die,don'tthey?

My father died in August. His will specified that his wife (married 8 months)
get 1/3 of the property he owned alone, and my brother and I get 1/3 each. He
also put in that she would get his share of the modular home that they bought
together. I don't know the law anywhere else, but it appears that in SC, yes,
the individual may will his property to others beyond the spouse.

Sheila <--who is about ready to sign her share of her dad's "estate" over to
anyone who will take over the headaches!

WhansaMi wrote:
I trust my DH to do what is right WRT my kids.

Which may mean having a prenup with his next wife! That way he will guarantee that
if he goes, the money you left to him will go to the rightful owners, your kids.
He trusts me the same way. Naive? Maybe. But, it is how I feel.

No, that's not Naive at all. It's good to trust each other.
Part of this is that I don't necessarily believe that my kids are *entitled* to our money.

You mean you prefer your husband's next wife take it?

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Reposted for Doug's benefit, at his request... Can you say what you were trying to say? The only words you posted that were mine are here: Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news> I disagree. I think his main point _was_ "Sheila can't really predict> what she'd do." He then went overboard in claiming that he _could_> predict it. My re-reading of his post confirms that to me. They seem polite and respectful to me. No sarcasm. I'm saying directly what I mean. Now I may be _wrong_, but I'm not being rude, as Tony was. So what is it that you say I am doing here that is the equivalent to responding with rudeness to something polite? Or responding disrespectfully to a respectful post (which Ellie's was).

Sometimes you seem to get up on the Mountain of yours, Doug, where you think
that YOU have the Correct View, and if someone doesn't agree with you, that
they are a bit "out to lunch".

Furthermore, to the best of my recollection, you have never ONCE admitted the
possibility that you might be wrong in any of your assessments or judgements
about people, or what they believe in.

Doing so is called humility. It would be refreshing to see that displayed
here, at least on occasion, by several of us "bricks" in here. And I haven't
seen it yet - from either you or rg.

>WhansaMi wrote: I trust my DH to do what is right WRT my kids.Which may mean having a prenup with his next wife! That way he will guaranteethatif he goes, the money you left to him will go to the rightful owners, yourkids.

Eeehhh... I don't see it that way. The rightful "owners" is me, and my
husband. If I'm dead, it's just him.
He trusts me the same way. Naive? Maybe. But, it is how I feel.No, that's not Naive at all. It's good to trust each other. Part of this is that I don't necessarily believe that my kids are*entitled* to our money.You mean you prefer your husband's next wife take it?


I'd prefer that my husband enjoy it, with or without a new wife. :-)

Sheila

I know in my state.. that a spouse is automatically the beneficiary of life
insurance.. UNLESS they sign a release allowing you to name another
person...

Kass


"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F7CB950.9B3F5092@hotmail.com... WhansaMi wrote: But, as you say, who knows? Besides, the chances of my becoming filthy
rich at this point in time are rather slim, so I guess I'm just keep plugging
along in the life I have now. :-))) But lets say you DO become filthy rich. :-) Then, if heaven forbid, your
private jet crashes and you die, would you want your husband to have a prenup with
his next wife, so that your assets are secured for your children and not his next
wife (or their future children)? I am not sure if a will would guarantee that your assets go to your
children. Does anyone know if one can will their assets to their kids instead of spouse,
or since they are community property the spouse is the default owner? If everything
that you own goes to your spouse, then their next spouse would take that if they
die, don't they?

Either that. or she chose not to contest it..

Kass

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031002195512.25557.00000195@mb-m05.aol.com... But, as you say, who knows? Besides, the chances of my becoming filthyrich at this point in time are rather slim, so I guess I'm just keep plugging
alongin the life I have now. :-)))But lets say you DO become filthy rich. :-) Then, if heaven forbid, yourprivatejet crashes and you die, would you want your husband to have a prenup
withhis nextwife, so that your assets are secured for your children and not his next
wife(ortheir future children)? Nah. :-) I trust my DH to do what is right WRT my kids. He trusts me the same way. Naive? Maybe. But, it is how I feel. Part of this is that I don't necessarily believe that my kids are
*entitled* to our money. If we grow old together, we plan to spend every cent of it
before we go, so they won't get any beyond the insurance policy anyway, so I'm
not so concerned that they get it if I go first.I am not sure if a will would guarantee that your assets go to your
children.Doesanyone know if one can will their assets to their kids instead of spouse,
orsincethey are community property the spouse is the default owner? If
everythingthat youown goes to your spouse, then their next spouse would take that if they
die,don'tthey? My father died in August. His will specified that his wife (married 8
months) get 1/3 of the property he owned alone, and my brother and I get 1/3 each.
He also put in that she would get his share of the modular home that they
bought together. I don't know the law anywhere else, but it appears that in SC,
yes, the individual may will his property to others beyond the spouse. Sheila <--who is about ready to sign her share of her dad's "estate" over
to anyone who will take over the headaches!

ellie_first@hotmail.com (Ellie) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news I disagree. I think his main point _was_ "Sheila can't really predict what she'd do." He then went overboard in claiming that he _could_ predict it. My re-reading of his post confirms that to me. Really?! How so? Because you had already decided that that must have been what he meant? I also went back and reread his post. Could you please enlighten us and show from what part of his post you concluded the above? That is, from what he WROTE, not your preconceived ideas of what he thinks - that's totally useless from my point of view.

Well, he had a previous post in the thread, which was more general.
Here is the google link if you care. But it is true even in this post
that he is asserting that anyone with substantial financial assets
_will_ want a pre-nup. Having never experienced the "substantial
financial assets" myself, I don't know. But my sense is he is
overstating his case.

http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2529955844d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=N55eb.167460%24z32.73139%40twister.austin.rr. com

So it was from the context of the thread that I thought I knew what he
meant. But as I've already agreed, it is senseless for him to say
that he _knows_ what Sheila would do.
In fact, to help you come up with a better "interpretation" of what he really meant I'll include another post of his on the subject. I have not seen ANY other person in this thread claim with such authority that they know how precisely people will act under a specific circumstance. Those who don't think like him live in illusion!! Now, try as hard as you can to be a little objective and let me know what you understand from this:

Well, I'm not particularly interested in getting into the "explaing
rg" business. So I'll pass.

In fact, I could happily have sat this out, except Sheila goaded me in
by accusing me of a double standard. (In fact, up until that point,
I'd had a single standard. I'd happily ignored her post where she
stated she was certain she'd _never_ ask for a pre-nup under any
circumstances, and I'd also happily ignored rg's where he said she
_would_).

Doug

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Sometimes you seem to get up on the Mountain of yours, Doug, where you think that YOU have the Correct View, and if someone doesn't agree with you, that they are a bit "out to lunch".

You've just changed your accusation. You accused me of being rude and
disrespectful. Now you accuse me of (I think) arrogance. Make up
your mind.

I don't think people who disagree with me are out to lunch. But I
also don't like it when people seem to know how others should live
their lives.
Furthermore, to the best of my recollection, you have never ONCE admitted the possibility that you might be wrong in any of your assessments or judgements about people, or what they believe in.

It is easy to admit one is wrong in the abstract. Sure, I've been
wrong countless times in my life.

What I appreciate more than the bootless admission of fallability is
the ability to disagree with someone without being disagreeable.

In article <c8cb5319.0310021515.39efef83@posting.google.com>, shinypenny wrote: Early on, I raised the issue of a pre-nup. He had no problem at all with it, and gladly would sign anything I present.

That is quite silly on his part (willingness to sign anything).
He understands EXACTLY where I am coming from on that one. And he says that it doesn't matter anyway, because we're not going to get divorced if he can help it.

Outstanding.
For me, I guess you could say the pre-nup idea is a litmus test. The idea that he'd willingly sign something tells me his heart is in the right place, that if we ever did divorce, he wouldn't put me through the wringer, as my ex did. To me, it says very good things about his character.

Exactly, but some people do not get it. All wise thoughts so far.
In my particular situation, the fact that he would sign a pre-nup says to me that he *IS* someone to be trusted.

We see eye to eye on this.

i

WhansaMi wrote:
Which may mean having a prenup with his next wife! That way he will guaranteethatif he goes, the money you left to him will go to the rightful owners, yourkids. Eeehhh... I don't see it that way. The rightful "owners" is me, and my husband. If I'm dead, it's just him.

Eeehhh... me too! I don't seem able to get my point across to you. I was talking
about him getting married after you and dying before his wife, in which case your
assets would go to his wife and not your kids. But I get your point... you don't
like prenups. That's fine. :-)

>> >Which may mean having a prenup with his next wife! That way he willguaranteethatif he goes, the money you left to him will go to the rightful owners, yourkids. Eeehhh... I don't see it that way. The rightful "owners" is me, and my husband. If I'm dead, it's just him.Eeehhh... me too! I don't seem able to get my point across to you. I wastalkingabout him getting married after you and dying before his wife, in which caseyourassets would go to his wife and not your kids.

I get it. I just wouldn't care. :-) I don't think my kids are entitled to
my money. I think my husband, as my partner, is. If he takes a partner after
me, I don't think that has anything to do with my kids, because they weren't
entitled to it in the first place. :-)

And, no, I wouldn't be resentful that my DH had a life after I died. I
wouldn't be resentful if his new wife inherited "our" money, because, at that
point, it wouldn't be "our" money, it would be *his* money. I'm dead!

My father's (third) wife died before he did, MUCH to everyone's surprise. I
had, for years, assumed that everything *they* had would be spent, or given to
her kids, or whatever. That was fine with me, because I didn't feel any of it
was mine. It was his. It was hers. It was *theirs*. Whatever she decided to
do with it was her business, and none of mine. (Boy, were we surpised when he
outlived her!!!)

My brother is all knotted up because my dad's new wife is getting 1/3 of the
"estate" (and I put it in quotation marks because there is hardly enough to
call an "estate"!) when she was "only married to him 8 months." I listen to
him gripe, I make consoling noises, but, frankly, I don't understand his
feelings. My father wanted to marry her. He didn't HAVE to. This was his
wife. We are his kids, and have no entitlement to his money, or land, or any
of it. That he decided to include us is nice, but.... I wouldn't have been the
least bit upset if it had all gone to her.

I guess maybe that's where there is some disconnect here. I don't INTEND my
estate to my kids. I have pet charities I give to. I plan (hope!) to travel
when we retire, and spend a lot of our money. :-) My kids know this. They
don't expect a part of my "estate". If I decide to leave 'em anything, it will
be gravy.

Sheila

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Sometimes you seem to get up on the Mountain of yours, Doug, where you think that YOU have the Correct View, and if someone doesn't agree with you, that they are a bit "out to lunch". You've just changed your accusation. You accused me of being rude and disrespectful. Now you accuse me of (I think) arrogance. Make up your mind. I don't think people who disagree with me are out to lunch. But I also don't like it when people seem to know how others should live their lives.

Ummm, since the definition of marriage hasn't changed yet, AFAIK, good luck.
As you said, and/or implied, yours was, indeed, somewhat of a self serving
viewpoint - representing your own personal interest in this issue.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
Well, I'm not particularly interested in getting into the "explaing rg" business. So I'll pass.

Yes, I am not interested in "explaining rg" either, I was talking
about you!

See, I am not a real regular in this group, just come and go when I
have time, and when I'm here I can only follow a couple of threads. As
a result I don't know the personalities and their overall views on
things. Whenever I engage in a thread I learn the position of people
on that particular subject, but because I don't read every thread and
don't stay here all the time I forget about who thinks what, or which
"hole" each person belongs in!

This lack of knowledge about people's views gives me a refreshing
outlook. I am forced not to pigeonhole people and expect them to think
a certain way, so I can truly enjoy the interaction with each person
as if I am meeting them for the first time - and I judge them that way
too.

In this thread, for instance, I had no idea about Sheila's views in
general, and still don't have a clue either. All I know now is the way
she thinks about prenups. Because I had recently engaged in the gay
marriage thread I had a bit of preconception abouy you as someone who
favors the "relativist" view, and was really surprised when you took
rg's side against Sheila's. In this case rg is way more absolutist and
judgmental than Sheils, who at least claimed that she knows for sure
what SHE would do.

Because I had seen you argue with Tony and Bill in that thread I asked
if you would react the same way if either one of them had said exactly
what rg said. And your response surprised me even more. It seems to me
that you "type" people pretty rigidly and then don't hear what they
say anymore, but what in your view their "type" would say.

I personally don't follow a particular party line of opinions, and my
views on different issues are all over the map. That's why I kept
pressing you on this rg business to see how much you are able to take
someone's opinion without regard to the framework that you have put
them in.

The spirit of what rg has said through his multiple post in this
thread (including the one you just posted as evidence!)is clearly the
opposite of the kind of relativism that you were attributing to him,
but you go out of your way to "understand" him the way you expect him
to think. To me this is not the way that relativests ususaly think
(see, I'm doing the pigeonholing now :-)), and that's why it became
interesting for me!

Ellie wrote: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: Well, I'm not particularly interested in getting into the "explaing rg" business. So I'll pass. Yes, I am not interested in "explaining rg" either, I was talking about you! See, I am not a real regular in this group, just come and go when I have time, and when I'm here I can only follow a couple of threads. As a result I don't know the personalities and their overall views on things. Whenever I engage in a thread I learn the position of people on that particular subject, but because I don't read every thread and don't stay here all the time I forget about who thinks what, or which "hole" each person belongs in! This lack of knowledge about people's views gives me a refreshing outlook. I am forced not to pigeonhole people and expect them to think a certain way, so I can truly enjoy the interaction with each person as if I am meeting them for the first time - and I judge them that way too. In this thread, for instance, I had no idea about Sheila's views in general, and still don't have a clue either. All I know now is the way she thinks about prenups. Because I had recently engaged in the gay marriage thread I had a bit of preconception abouy you as someone who favors the "relativist" view, and was really surprised when you took rg's side against Sheila's. In this case rg is way more absolutist and judgmental than Sheils, who at least claimed that she knows for sure what SHE would do. Because I had seen you argue with Tony and Bill in that thread I asked if you would react the same way if either one of them had said exactly what rg said. And your response surprised me even more. It seems to me that you "type" people pretty rigidly and then don't hear what they say anymore, but what in your view their "type" would say. I personally don't follow a particular party line of opinions, and my views on different issues are all over the map. That's why I kept pressing you on this rg business to see how much you are able to take someone's opinion without regard to the framework that you have put them in. The spirit of what rg has said through his multiple post in this thread (including the one you just posted as evidence!)is clearly the opposite of the kind of relativism that you were attributing to him, but you go out of your way to "understand" him the way you expect him to think. To me this is not the way that relativests ususaly think (see, I'm doing the pigeonholing now :-)), and that's why it became interesting for me!

We sometimes do box people in. I hope (think) I've done that more to the
issues, than the people, though.

ellie_first@hotmail.com (Ellie) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: Well, I'm not particularly interested in getting into the "explaing rg" business. So I'll pass. Yes, I am not interested in "explaining rg" either, I was talking about you! See, I am not a real regular in this group, just come and go when I have time, and when I'm here I can only follow a couple of threads. As a result I don't know the personalities and their overall views on things. Whenever I engage in a thread I learn the position of people on that particular subject, but because I don't read every thread and don't stay here all the time I forget about who thinks what, or which "hole" each person belongs in! This lack of knowledge about people's views gives me a refreshing outlook. I am forced not to pigeonhole people and expect them to think a certain way, so I can truly enjoy the interaction with each person as if I am meeting them for the first time - and I judge them that way too. In this thread, for instance, I had no idea about Sheila's views in general, and still don't have a clue either. All I know now is the way she thinks about prenups. Because I had recently engaged in the gay marriage thread I had a bit of preconception abouy you as someone who favors the "relativist" view, and was really surprised when you took rg's side against Sheila's. In this case rg is way more absolutist and judgmental than Sheils, who at least claimed that she knows for sure what SHE would do.

Wait. I took no sides in this thread. In fact I stayed out of it
until Sheila complained that I hadn't said anything!

I certainly don't feel like I took rg's "side."

I strongly disagree with Sheila and Tony's assertions that having a
pre-nup implies lack of intimacy. That is the only issue I have a
real opinion on in this thread.

(I _also_ think that no one really knows what they'll do in radically
different circumstances, and certainly rg can't know what Sheila will
do either. But this isn't really a point I'm interested.)
Because I had seen you argue with Tony and Bill in that thread I asked if you would react the same way if either one of them had said exactly what rg said. And your response surprised me even more. It seems to me that you "type" people pretty rigidly and then don't hear what they say anymore, but what in your view their "type" would say.

I type Bill. He's been here a long time, and his behavior is
consistent, and rude. But, I also listen to what he says.

At this point I type Tony too. We've disagreed about several things,
and he has been rude to me several times. In spite of this, I still
respond to what he says by reading it.

I doubt you can find exceptions to this in my responses to either of
them.
I personally don't follow a particular party line of opinions, and my views on different issues are all over the map.

Nor do I.
That's why I kept pressing you on this rg business to see how much you are able to take someone's opinion without regard to the framework that you have put them in.

I think I put my money where my mouth is, so to speak. Sheila is a
good example since I've both agreed with her and disagreed with her
about many things.

Bill is no longer a good example since I can no longer take him
seriously. He states opinions, but instead of defending them, he
usually resorts to hyperbole or invective.
The spirit of what rg has said through his multiple post in this thread (including the one you just posted as evidence!)is clearly the opposite of the kind of relativism that you were attributing to him, but you go out of your way to "understand" him the way you expect him to think. To me this is not the way that relativests ususaly think (see, I'm doing the pigeonholing now :-)), and that's why it became interesting for me!

Rg is another example of someone I've both agreed with and disagreed
with. Though his recent presence has been brief, and I don't know how
much disagreeing I've done during that period.

Doug

Doug Anderson wrote: ellie_first@hotmail.com (Ellie) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: Well, I'm not particularly interested in getting into the "explaing rg" business. So I'll pass. Yes, I am not interested in "explaining rg" either, I was talking about you! See, I am not a real regular in this group, just come and go when I have time, and when I'm here I can only follow a couple of threads. As a result I don't know the personalities and their overall views on things. Whenever I engage in a thread I learn the position of people on that particular subject, but because I don't read every thread and don't stay here all the time I forget about who thinks what, or which "hole" each person belongs in!

Yes, there is a bit of typing in here (by some)
This lack of knowledge about people's views gives me a refreshing outlook. I am forced not to pigeonhole people and expect them to think a certain way, so I can truly enjoy the interaction with each person as if I am meeting them for the first time - and I judge them that way too.

Exactly.
In this thread, for instance, I had no idea about Sheila's views in general, and still don't have a clue either. All I know now is the way she thinks about prenups. Because I had recently engaged in the gay marriage thread I had a bit of preconception abouy you as someone who favors the "relativist" view, and was really surprised when you took rg's side against Sheila's. In this case rg is way more absolutist and judgmental than Sheils, who at least claimed that she knows for sure what SHE would do. Wait. I took no sides in this thread. In fact I stayed out of it until Sheila complained that I hadn't said anything! I certainly don't feel like I took rg's "side." I strongly disagree with Sheila and Tony's assertions that having a pre-nup implies lack of intimacy. That is the only issue I have a real opinion on in this thread. (I _also_ think that no one really knows what they'll do in radically different circumstances, and certainly rg can't know what Sheila will do either. But this isn't really a point I'm interested.) Because I had seen you argue with Tony and Bill in that thread I asked if you would react the same way if either one of them had said exactly what rg said. And your response surprised me even more. It seems to me that you "type" people pretty rigidly and then don't hear what they say anymore, but what in your view their "type" would say. I type Bill. He's been here a long time, and his behavior is consistent, and rude. But, I also listen to what he says.

It is direct and blunt. I'm not convinced it is rude. Yours is more covert,
more discreet, that's all.
At this point I type Tony too. We've disagreed about several things, and he has been rude to me several times. In spite of this, I still respond to what he says by reading it. I doubt you can find exceptions to this in my responses to either of them. I personally don't follow a particular party line of opinions, and my views on different issues are all over the map. Nor do I. That's why I kept pressing you on this rg business to see how much you are able to take someone's opinion without regard to the framework that you have put them in. I think I put my money where my mouth is, so to speak. Sheila is a good example since I've both agreed with her and disagreed with her about many things. Bill is no longer a good example since I can no longer take him seriously. He states opinions, but instead of defending them, he usually resorts to hyperbole or invective.

I have defended them, Doug, with my belief system, but you just diss it,
because YOU don't agree with it. Which is rude. At least be honest about
it.

And maybe *I* should say "....I no longer take Doug seriously...." Is that
what you mean by being rude? Of course not (not in your mind). I'd say
that is a bit rude, FYI. You're just a bit more covert.
The spirit of what rg has said through his multiple post in this thread (including the one you just posted as evidence!)is clearly the opposite of the kind of relativism that you were attributing to him, but you go out of your way to "understand" him the way you expect him to think. To me this is not the way that relativests ususaly think (see, I'm doing the pigeonholing now :-)), and that's why it became interesting for me! Rg is another example of someone I've both agreed with and disagreed with. Though his recent presence has been brief, and I don't know how much disagreeing I've done during that period. Doug

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:34:59 GMT,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: ellie_first@hotmail.com (Ellie) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: Well, I'm not particularly interested in getting into the "explaing rg" business. So I'll pass. Yes, I am not interested in "explaining rg" either, I was talking about you! See, I am not a real regular in this group, just come and go when I have time, and when I'm here I can only follow a couple of threads. As a result I don't know the personalities and their overall views on things. Whenever I engage in a thread I learn the position of people on that particular subject, but because I don't read every thread and don't stay here all the time I forget about who thinks what, or which "hole" each person belongs in! This lack of knowledge about people's views gives me a refreshing outlook. I am forced not to pigeonhole people and expect them to think a certain way, so I can truly enjoy the interaction with each person as if I am meeting them for the first time - and I judge them that way too. In this thread, for instance, I had no idea about Sheila's views in general, and still don't have a clue either. All I know now is the way she thinks about prenups. Because I had recently engaged in the gay marriage thread I had a bit of preconception abouy you as someone who favors the "relativist" view, and was really surprised when you took rg's side against Sheila's. In this case rg is way more absolutist and judgmental than Sheils, who at least claimed that she knows for sure what SHE would do. Wait. I took no sides in this thread. In fact I stayed out of it until Sheila complained that I hadn't said anything! I certainly don't feel like I took rg's "side." I strongly disagree with Sheila and Tony's assertions that having a pre-nup implies lack of intimacy. That is the only issue I have a real opinion on in this thread.

It implies lack of intimacy for me. It implies lack if intimacy for my
wife. How you attend to your marriage is your business. If you want a
pre-nup, go for it. And if you want to kid yourself that it doesn't imply
a lack of trust (which ANYTHING you get a lawyer involved in implies) then
feel free to put on the blinders and have a pre-nup mean anything in a
relationship you want, even as one person did, completely flip flop it
around to imply MORE trust (as if someone bowing to your lack of trust
makes them more trustworthy).
(I _also_ think that no one really knows what they'll do in radically different circumstances, and certainly rg can't know what Sheila will do either. But this isn't really a point I'm interested.)

I don't even know what *I* would do in radically different circumstances.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
It implies lack of intimacy for me. It implies lack if intimacy for my wife. How you attend to your marriage is your business. If you want a pre-nup, go for it.

I'm fine up to this point. You say what it means for you, and that
what it means for me is my business.
And if you want to kid yourself that it doesn't imply a lack of trust (which ANYTHING you get a lawyer involved in implies) then feel free to put on the blinders and have a pre-nup mean anything in a relationship you want, even as one person did, completely flip flop it around to imply MORE trust (as if someone bowing to your lack of trust makes them more trustworthy).

_Now_ you are saying that if it means something different for me than
for you, I'm deluding myself. This I find to be a ridiculous
statement for you to make.

I don't know. I signed a pre-nup, I actually initiated it. It was
discussed on the first date. My impression was that if one has
significant assets, they should know that they are protected if
something should happen. I was also under the impression that a
pre-nup was not merely a pre-divorce agreement, but historicall a
mutual will.

However, my prenup experience was stressful and quite the learning
experience. My (now) husband wanted to have his attorney draw it up.
He took his sweet time in doing so (started it about 1 month before we
got married). He has considerable assets and no job (another story).

The first draft should have clued me into how our marriage would be:
100% of what's his stays his, 50% of what's mine is his, and he can
throw me out at any time... He removed all of the "will" components
to it, promising to do that at a later date. He made it into a
pre-divorce aggreement... It should have read that as of the date of
the marriage, everything was mutual.

Needless to say, we were married less than 2 months when I was asked
to leave. This was not a heat-of-the-moment request on his part. I
don't know what happened... I have contributed the only marital
assets, but he spends the money on his hobbies and himself (whereas I
am scraping to buy food). I have gone from a size 12 to a size 8 in
about 2 weeks... I'm not living in "his" house. (There's more to
this but I won't bore you.) He keeps 100% of his time for him, and
doesn't fill me in on anything. He knows where I am almost every
moment. I was also notified that I would not be taking off of work if
we have children. (Why would I still want children with this man?)

In short, at this time, I believe that I would want another prenup. I
believe that I would want that written, finalized, and signed even
before I accepted another preposal, as I should have seen what I was
getting into then. I believe that it would give me insight as to how
he would expect the marriage to be, as this one should have. If my
first pre-nup wasn't signed until the week of the wedding, I probably
would have called the whole thing off (or he would have).




"kellya" <kellya@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message news:<3f7869cb$1_3@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>... Hi! I am final year journalism student doing a feature on prenups. I am looking for men/women who have signed or are thinking about signing a prenup agreement, or people who have refused to sign a prenup, who wouldn;t mind answering a few questions It would take 10 mins of your time, and would make me a very happy person! Thanks Kelly

shinypenny wrote: "kellya" <kellya@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message news:<3f7869cb$1_3@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>...Hi!I am final year journalism student doing a feature on prenups. I am lookingfor men/women who have signed or are thinking about signing a prenupagreement, or people who have refused to sign a prenup, who wouldn;t mindanswering a few questions It would take 10 mins of your time, and would makeme a very happy person!ThanksKelly Everyone else has already weighed in on this, so I guess it's my turn. I am a divorced mother of two. I went through a nasty divorce/custody battle with my ex, during which time, with our assets frozen for several years, I struggled mightily to make ends meet and re-start my career, after having been a SAHM. Ultimately, we settled on a straight 50-50 split of the assets, and shared 50-50 custody with no child support exchanging hands. Today I am doing quite good, have re-built my career, make a decent salary, and have significant assets, including a house that I just bought on my own. I have about 7 years to save up for my kids' college education. I am also just starting to put money away for my retirement, something I did not have the luxury to do before now. My previous BF had never been married. This was because he took marriage very, very seriously, and had not found anyone that he was confident enough felt the same way. We did discuss marriage, and possibly having a child together. He felt if we did, I should be the one to stay at home while he supported us. I questioned this, because I am responsible to pay 50% of my kids' college educations. He felt that it was my ex's responsibility, and not really his. I asked if he'd sign a pre-nup, and he was extremely insulted by the suggestion. He felt just as many on this thread do, that a pre-nup indicates you're already planning for the possibility of divorce. Needless to say, we went our separate ways because we just couldn't see eye-to-eye on these issues. Flash forward; now I am recently engaged to a man who is also divorced, also went through a messy and costly custody/divorce battle, and also has two children from his first marriage, for which he is responsible for 50% of their college educations. He has less assets than I do, makes less money than I do, and pays out child support. Early on, I raised the issue of a pre-nup. He had no problem at all with it, and gladly would sign anything I present. He understands EXACTLY where I am coming from on that one. And he says that it doesn't matter anyway, because we're not going to get divorced if he can help it. For me, I guess you could say the pre-nup idea is a litmus test. The idea that he'd willingly sign something tells me his heart is in the right place, that if we ever did divorce, he wouldn't put me through the wringer, as my ex did. To me, it says very good things about his character. In my particular situation, the fact that he would sign a pre-nup says to me that he *IS* someone to be trusted. jen
I think you hit the target here. I had nothing when wife and I got
married and she had quite a bit more in real assets (though not
wealthy). If she had asked me to sign a prenup I would have been more
than happy to alleviate any fears she might have. I would have signed
it because I love her and want her to feel loved and secure.

Ellie wrote: WhansaMi wrote:But, as you say, who knows? Besides, the chances of my becoming filthy rich atthis point in time are rather slim, so I guess I'm just keep plugging along inthe life I have now. :-))) But lets say you DO become filthy rich. :-) Then, if heaven forbid, your private jet crashes and you die, would you want your husband to have a prenup with his next wife, so that your assets are secured for your children and not his next wife (or their future children)? I am not sure if a will would guarantee that your assets go to your children. Does anyone know if one can will their assets to their kids instead of spouse, or since they are community property the spouse is the default owner? If everything that you own goes to your spouse, then their next spouse would take that if they die, don't they?
sigh....everyones situation is different. Our kids are grown and on
their own so neither of believe they are entitled to monetary
bequeathmens but there are personl things we (separately and together)
we want the kids to have. We have written these down and everyone is
aware of where the list is. I am probably naive but I don't thing
there will be a problem.