Long Term Relationships

Not_Punny

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,464
Media
109
Likes
3,056
Points
258
Location
California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Damn, HD. (stamps foot in anger) :tongue::rolleyes:

- - - - - - - - - -

I know it's a different point, DW. I just get tired of people making out women to be gold diggers. Sometimes it is true, and sometimes it isn't.

That's why prenups are a good idea. You SHOULD know, going in to a marriage, where you're going to be taking your lives, how you want to build assets, and what belongs to whom. If two people can't sit down and talk about that kind of stuff, they're not ready for life let alone for marriage.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
I agree but I will also stand by the point that not all women would have become the CEO of Coca Cola had it not for been for raising that family. Hard though it be, we have to make choices.

I will blog on this if anyone is interested.
 

Not_Punny

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,464
Media
109
Likes
3,056
Points
258
Location
California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I agree but I will also stand by the point that not all women would have become the CEO of Coca Cola had it not for been for raising that family. Hard though it be, we have to make choices.

I will blog on this if anyone is interested.

So who's talking about being CEO of anything? :rolleyes:

* snip! (I said something mean) * oh well
 

Axcess

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Posts
1,611
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Damn, HD. (stamps foot in anger) :tongue::rolleyes:

- - - - - - - - - -

I know it's a different point, DW. I just get tired of people making out women to be gold diggers. Sometimes it is true, and sometimes it isn't.

That's why prenups are a good idea. You SHOULD know, going in to a marriage, where you're going to be taking your lives, how you want to build assets, and what belongs to whom. If two people can't sit down and talk about that kind of stuff, they're not ready for life let alone for marriage.
The woman of most relationships that I have experienced were bossy but many guys are bossy too , so the same applied to both sexes.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,707
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
I know it's a different point, DW. I just get tired of people making out women to be gold diggers. Sometimes it is true, and sometimes it isn't.
Gold diggers piss me off because they make our gender look helpless, selfish, and devious - all those associations I despise. There is, however, a difference between a woman who wants to marry someone she loves who works hard, is fiscally responsible, and makes a good income and a woman who marries ONLY for money and the subsequent cushy alimony. The latter is what I would describe as a gold digger.

That's why prenups are a good idea. You SHOULD know, going in to a marriage, where you're going to be taking your lives, how you want to build assets, and what belongs to whom. If two people can't sit down and talk about that kind of stuff, they're not ready for life let alone for marriage.

I agree future marriage partners need to discuss all financial concerns and goals but that's not the intention of a prenup which, to me, seems like a "just in case" legal document which implies there's little trust in the relationship to begin with.

I don't know what to think about prenups, TBH. I was financially screwed in my divorce a few years ago and I still haven't completely recovered. I was trying to finish my degree and had to drop out in order to pay the mortgage and lawyer fees. I would hate for anyone to go through anything like this and I don't plan on putting myself in this position again. The reality is that the one who brings more income into the household is the usually the one who makes most of the financial decisions. The most educated partner with more work experience can generate more income that the partner who has only one or neither. When I have children, I will encourage them to get an education before they make a legal bond with anyone.
 

snoozan

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
3,449
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I agree but I will also stand by the point that not all women would have become the CEO of Coca Cola had it not for been for raising that family. Hard though it be, we have to make choices.

DW, I get where you're coming from but the truth is, both men and women want children. And, unfortunately, in our society today even working women are saddled with the majority of childcare. Yes, it could be different, but it's the truth. In most cases, when one member of a couple has to sacrifice some or all of a career, it's the female partner of the relationship. It's cultural, and most women (me included) are willing to do it. Yes, we choose to be mothers and we generally are, if nothing else, resigned to the fact that if we have kids the burden of care will fall on us. That's just realistic. For many women, choosing between having kids and giving up some of a career or not having kids at all is not an easy decision, but one that's generally made in favor of having children.

In my case, I came into my motherhood with the full understanding that I would be mom for 5 years and give up most of my career because my husband was much more established in his career (which is what I get for marrying an old fart). I'm okay with that. However, I do miss work terribly, and staying at home mostly isolated with the internet being the only communication I get some days is difficult. On the other hand, I know it's just as hard for my husband to work 16 hour days and come home to be with us for 2 hours at the most. In my opinion, our roles are equally demanding and we sacrifice equally. Therefore, even though my income is squat, what I have given to this marriage is, averaged out over the years 50%. To say that I deserve anything less than half of the proceeds from a divorce isn't fair, even though most of the assets have been gained with my husband's salary.

In the same vein, had I married someone with assets coming into the marriage, I would not have signed a prenup unless he had other children that needed to be cared for in the event of a divorce. Why not? Because when he married me I agreed to take on all of him, the good and the bad, and vice versa. If I manage a household with someone, including finances, the sum total of that household is half mine regardless of whose wealth, previously or during the relationship, enriched the household.

I agree with bliss also, because if I were to get divorced today, I'd be in a similar situation that she was, except I have a child. I have a fledgling career and other job prospects would not be enough to cover the cost of raising a child and keeping my own household. I'd be fucked financially, and that's just the truth of it. I would feel 100% entitled to be supported until I could get my feet off the ground in a career and get money to raise my child. It doesn't seem fair to me that, having put in 50% into a relationship, that I walk with nothing and my husband would still have the house, the cars, his income, etc.

But I don't plan on getting divorced, thank Bob.
 

Not_Punny

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,464
Media
109
Likes
3,056
Points
258
Location
California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I know a billionaire who is having a terrible time with his ex wife. When I talk to him, I am so disheartened by his whole opinion of women.

Most women, quite frankly, are amazingly noble creatures. The fact that women with financial talons are the ones that make the news really pisses me off.

They give women a bad name.

And they are, like, 1 or 2% of womankind??? (That's a guestimated statistic, it's probably much lower than that)

And for every woman who's clawing for money there are, what, five or ten dead beat dads?
 

B_bigbanana

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Posts
114
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Never base ANY choice off emotion because emotions just fade. Also, in a committed relationship physical attraction is good, BUT that can not be the factor for the relationship. Great sex is and physical attraction are not necessarily the things to look for. The thing to try to look for is how the person is when no one is around. When people get comfortable and decide to show their true selves.
In other words never go into a long-term relationship without first getting to really be comfortable around that relationship otherwise you will be disappointed and may end it out of shock or discouragement. You can not find happiness in other people (even spouse)...especially long run.
But I also believe our culture doesn't even truly know what commitment means anymore. Look it up in Webster's dictionary. :smile:
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Interesting dichotomy. When my partner and I decided to be "more than just boyfriends," we decided that it was a commitment - a real commitment. Neither of us sees our relationship as anything remotely disposable. The irony is, we cannot enter legally into the institution known as marriage, and any "prenup" we might choose to draw up would be worthless in our state of residence. State law prohibits recognition of our relationship by any means, and prohibits any government entity from honoring any legal agreements we have between us which might possibly be construed as "equivalent to marriage". No property, estate, or financial agreements, no survivorship, no division of assets. His ex-wife could challenge the life insurance, listing me as beneficiary, and would most likely win. I don't know of anyone who would challenge my policy, so that's not really an issue.

It's coming near our 7th anniversary, our relationship is still healthy and strong, and I do see it lasting "until death do part us."
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Interesting dichotomy. When my partner and I decided to be "more than just boyfriends," we decided that it was a commitment - a real commitment. Neither of us sees our relationship as anything remotely disposable. The irony is, we cannot enter legally into the institution known as marriage, and any "prenup" we might choose to draw up would be worthless in our state of residence. State law prohibits recognition of our relationship by any means, and prohibits any government entity from honoring any legal agreements we have between us which might possibly be construed as "equivalent to marriage". No property, estate, or financial agreements, no survivorship, no division of assets. His ex-wife could challenge the life insurance, listing me as beneficiary, and would most likely win. I don't know of anyone who would challenge my policy, so that's not really an issue.

DC, although survivorship laws favor hetrosexual married couples many gay couples here in California have offset much of that unequitable bias by setting up Living Trusts which bypass most probate laws that favor married hetrosexuals. Although it is not legal to marry in the state it has set up a domestic partner provision which entitles us to some of the benefits married couples share at least for state income tax and property tax reassessment.

Many guys with partners I know have opted out of domestic partnership because the beefed up change was too financially binding for them. Seems like they only wanted to married in the political sense. Most of the gay couples who I know who have decided to keep their domestic partnerships are lesbian families primarily so the partner can keep the kids if one of them dies.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,759
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I "picked up" my husband in a bar 27 years ago in a bar when I was 20. I haven't gone home yet. We got married as soon as the state of massachusetts allowed us. Why are we still together. That's simple, we love each other. i guess we're lucky.Here's us 27 years ago on our honeymoon in paris:
 

Attachments

DaveyR

Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Posts
5,422
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Location
Northumberland
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Interesting dichotomy. When my partner and I decided to be "more than just boyfriends," we decided that it was a commitment - a real commitment. Neither of us sees our relationship as anything remotely disposable. The irony is, we cannot enter legally into the institution known as marriage, and any "prenup" we might choose to draw up would be worthless in our state of residence. State law prohibits recognition of our relationship by any means, and prohibits any government entity from honoring any legal agreements we have between us which might possibly be construed as "equivalent to marriage". No property, estate, or financial agreements, no survivorship, no division of assets. His ex-wife could challenge the life insurance, listing me as beneficiary, and would most likely win. I don't know of anyone who would challenge my policy, so that's not really an issue.

It's coming near our 7th anniversary, our relationship is still healthy and strong, and I do see it lasting "until death do part us."

I am in the same position DC. Paul and I will celebrate 21 years together this year. As of a couple of years ago we are now able to get married but after spending so long waiting neither of us see the point now. We would both fight for anyone else's right to do so though.

We do have secure wills and trusts and we are entitled to "widow's" benefits from each others pensions having both worked for enlightened employers in the past. Beyond that we have made no other arragements and expect to be living together for life.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
DC, although survivorship laws favor hetrosexual married couples many gay couples here in California have offset much of that unequitable bias by setting up Living Trusts which bypass most probate laws that favor married hetrosexuals. Although it is not legal to marry in the state it has set up a domestic partner provision which entitles us to some of the benefits married couples share at least for state income tax and property tax reassessment.

Many guys with partners I know have opted out of domestic partnership because the beefed up change was too financially binding for them. Seems like they only wanted to married in the political sense. Most of the gay couples who I know who have decided to keep their domestic partnerships are lesbian families primarily so the partner can keep the kids if one of them dies.
That's fine, in California. I live in Virginia. The laws are different here. Laws passed just last year were carefully worded, and specifically state that ANY contract between two unmarried persons of any gender, which may possibly be construed as bestowing ANY of the legal protections of marriage, is de facto null and void. I would LOVE to have some of those "financially binding" laws apply here. Filing jointly would save us around $4500 a year in income tax alone.
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
That's fine, in California. I live in Virginia. The laws are different here. Laws passed just last year were carefully worded, and specifically state that ANY contract between two unmarried persons of any gender, which may possibly be construed as bestowing ANY of the legal protections of marriage, is de facto null and void.

It certainly is sad that some lawmaker would create such a law out just to be vindictive and spiteful. History repeats. $4500- that's quite a chunk of change to be punished for being gay.

A living trust however is a legal document that has no bearing whether one is married or not. Not sure how Virginia law can challenge that.

Sometimes I think just calling it a Civil Union and just getting those same financial and tax benefits as straight people would serve us much better now and wait for the politically charged label of "Gay Marriage" and the seperate but equal fight to come later.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
It certainly is sad that some lawmaker would create such a law out just to be vindictive and spiteful. History repeats. $4500- that's quite a chunk of change to be punished for being gay.

A living trust however is a legal document that has no bearing whether one is married or not. Not sure how Virginia law can challenge that.

Sometimes I think just calling it a Civil Union and just getting those same financial and tax benefits as straight people would serve us much better now and wait for the politically charged label of "Gay Marriage" and the seperate but equal fight to come later.
I agree, and their vindictiveness and spitefulness were carefully thought out - they decided it was better to punish unmarried straight couples too, to minimize criticism. But the thing is, those unmarried straight couples make that choice to forego benefits and protections. I do not have that choice.

I'll track down the exact law for you, when I get a chance, but I believe there are several cases in various levels of the judicial system here, in which legal documents which would seem to be binding may not be so under the new laws. Remember, all the state has to do is prove "approximating a benefit of marriage" to declare a document void. One case that comes to mind was a gay couple, one of whom had been "officially" disowned by his parents when he married his partner, and who had a legally sworn and executed last will and testament. His estranged parents filed a couple of legal documents, and the courts decided to nullify his will, and return custody of his corpse to them - against his living will and his surviving partner's wishes. It was ugly.

As for civil unions, yes, that would be OK with me, as long as the federal government published the 1040 with a check box for "unioned, filing jointly" and my partner and I received all the same legal rights and protections as married couples. Unfortunately, the federal government makes no concessions and most states that do have civil union laws do not extend full rights and protections.
 

The Dragon

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Posts
5,767
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
193
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
I am with Hotmilf in wanting legal protection.
The assets that I brought into my marriage were considerable even though my ex was very weathly in his own right.
When he left instead of wanting to divide the assets that we had accumulated during the course of our marriage in an equitable fashion he decided that he was going to go after everything and leave me beggered.
The ensuing legal battles where protracted, expensive and very bloody.
( I must say that I throughly enjoyed the battle because, out of sheer self preservation it helped me to regain my self esteem, my back bone and alot of my old fire, plus if I'm spending that much money I'm going to damn well enjoy myself).
Two things saved me-
1) My parents and their legal team were well informed when it came to setting up the family trust.
They had it structured in such a way that he (or outsiders)could gain access to the funds.
2) My utter contempt for my parents money.
When I was 18 I escaped my parents household and was very determined that I wasn't going to take their money and I would make my own way.
Funds had been building in my trust during that time.

Since then I have an unabashed appreciation for legal financial protection and my advice for anyone thinking of moving in with someone is to obtain the very best legal advice you can and put protective measures in place before you move in.
Keep abreast of any law changes that affect the soundness of those measures.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I am with Hotmilf in wanting legal protection.

*snip*

Since then I have an unabashed appreciation for legal financial protection and my advice for anyone thinking of moving in with someone is to obtain the very best legal advice you can and put protective measures in place before you move in.
Keep abreast of any law changes that affect the soundness of those measures.
Absolutely, Dragonfly (which is, by the way, one of my favorite critters!) Legal and financial matters are tough to keep under control in a couple still happily together; if that is complicated by death, separation, or divorce, it's worse. There's nothing at all wrong with wanting to minimize present or future complications. It's utterly stupid, selfish, and naive to say "if you really loved me, you wouldn't want me to sign prenuptial agreements." It's even more stupid, selfish, and naive to answer that with "ok, honey, then I guess we really don't need them, anyway, since there is no possibility that anything could go wrong."

I love my partner very, very much, and at this point, I can see us being together for the rest of our lives. But we do not have a joint bank account. We each contribute to the household expenses (mortgage, utilities, and groceries), but beyond that, each of us has, and is responsible for, our own money and spending.
 

The Dragon

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Posts
5,767
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
193
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Yes DC Deep, I look upon such matters now as a form of insurance.
You wouldn't dream of not having life insurance, house insurance or a full comprehensive insurance on your motor vehicles and so it should be at the onset of a new relationship.
No body plans to have their house burn down, die or have a car crash but when and if it happens there is a vast relief to know that the losses are covered.
Relationships are the same, circumstances change and if you want a gaurantee that all will be well, go out and buy yourself a toaster because relationships don't come with one.
Best to have a stop loss plan in place.