Long Term Relationships

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Nothing IMO.

I didn't want people to think that I had been labelling women as gold diggers which seems to have been part of the discussion that ensued from my post.

I wrote a long and detailed response to your post, but it got cut by the server I am on in China at the moment. :mad::confused:
 

SassySpy

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,257
Media
17
Likes
139
Points
208
Location
Seattle USA,
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
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:

hot damn!! I have more to say on the thread topic but can only for the moment say hot damn! (oh and congrats, sweetie- 27 yrs is a record in this day and age)
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
137
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
He'd hoist his vast bulk on top of me for 10 minutes of rutting, coat me in sweat, body hair and saliva, cum, roll over and go to sleep.
:puke: What was it exactly that attracted you to such a man in the first place?


I put up with all this for 7 years trying to please him and make him happy and to be a good little wife because I belived in "till death do us part". It ended because he walked out. At this point in my life I don't feel like I will ever marry again.
I understand why you say that now; but I think you are too phenomenal a woman to be alone for very long.

I don't think a prenup is a guarantee for failure anymore than car insurance is a guarantee that you'll get in an accident. I agree I think that some people just use the pre-nup as an excuse. People sometimes change over time. If things don't work out, a prenup could prevent a lot of the nastiness of divorce. True, but it's the marriages that end quickly, say under 5 years that I wonder about. I tend to think that maybe they just got stuck on a rough spot and didn't really try to work it out because divorce was easier.
Also, a prenup could be used to guarantee an inheritance if a spouse dies, preventing the deceased's family from disinheriting the widow(er). Exactly! My mother has already informed me I have to have one should I ever find a man crazy enough to marry me for just that reason. We are not wealthy; but there is a small parcel of land which has been in her family since 1813 which my mom and her sister would like to stay in the family. A pre-nup is the best way to guarantee that.

Why did it take 5 years to decide you couldn't marry her? Pffftt :mad: :12: because he's a damn man! Why did it take my ex-bf 10 years to decide he couldn't marry me. I think most people could determine this in a year at most. Honey, you have no idea! This crap goes on all the time! :mad: I don't know why people just drag on in relationships like this. (You don't have to respond.) Because one partner has faith and trust in the other. The man is often the one telling the pretty lies which the woman believes. Though sometimes it is the woman who strings along the man. IMO, either way it's evil and mean and the person doing the stringing along should be shot. :cool:
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
121
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female


it's the marriages that end quickly, say under 5 years that I wonder about. I tend to think that maybe they just got stuck on a rough spot and didn't really try to work it out because divorce was easier.
Now because I'm so crap at quoting I'm not sure if that was something NJ said or Jovial, but I agree with that, many times couples run at the first sign of trouble, they hit a rough patch and instead of working through it and arriving at a stronger relationship and understanding they think 'this is too much like hard work, it's never going to work.' They end one relationship they should have fought for and two years down the line they're in exactly the same place with no understanding or means to get through those rough patches that occur in every relationship.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Also, a prenup could be used to guarantee an inheritance if a spouse dies, preventing the deceased's family from disinheriting the widow(er). Exactly! My mother has already informed me I have to have one should I ever find a man crazy enough to marry me for just that reason. We are not wealthy; but there is a small parcel of land which has been in her family since 1813 which my mom and her sister would like to stay in the family. A pre-nup is the best way to guarantee that.

My view also.

If I married a woman with family assets, I would not consider them mine in any way. If we had kids, I would consider them our kid's inheritance from her side of the family. If they came to me through tragedy, I would consider myself their guardian for the kids and if there weren't any kids, frankly I would hand them back to any of her family, or be happy that she left them to her family anyway.

I just feel that what other people's families happen to have is their family's. If you get divorced, you stop being a member of that family.

So, I would happily sign a pre nup if I married a wealthy woman.
 

SassySpy

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,257
Media
17
Likes
139
Points
208
Location
Seattle USA,
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
[/color][/size][/font]
Now because I'm so crap at quoting I'm not sure if that was something NJ said or Jovial, but I agree with that, many times couples run at the first sign of trouble, they hit a rough patch and instead of working through it and arriving at a stronger relationship and understanding they think 'this is too much like hard work, it's never going to work.' They end one relationship they should have fought for and two years down the line they're in exactly the same place with no understanding or means to get through those rough patches that occur in every relationship.

perhaps some of the blame for that lies in our own society's acceptance of divorce as a solution instead of 1) making a good decision in the first place and 2) solving problems instead of running from them cos its 'easier?'
In my great grandma's day, it just wasn't done. sure, there must have been many unhappy unions- but very few divorces. (thankfully my grandparents were happy their entire 65 years together)
yet on the other hand, their are some people who absolutely should not be together, their toxicity poisons their children and others around them. Maybe they should make rules for marrying as stringent as some they have for adoption.
Personally, I saw enough divorces and had enough 'daddies' to thoroughly give me food for thought- and I wouldn't be marrying (Feb 29th eeeekk!) if I weren't 100% positive that only death will end it.
gosh. this is a heavy topic that really spurs multiple opinions even in my own mind.....
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
137
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Now because I'm so crap at quoting I'm not sure if that was something NJ said or Jovial, but I agree with that, many times couples run at the first sign of trouble, they hit a rough patch and instead of working through it and arriving at a stronger relationship and understanding they think 'this is too much like hard work, it's never going to work.' They end one relationship they should have fought for and two years down the line they're in exactly the same place with no understanding or means to get through those rough patches that occur in every relationship.

You quoted me correctly and I agree with you. :smile: :cool:
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
121
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I think what Sassy says makes sense, marriage is far too easy, you can go into it with very little preparation or thought, they should have an entrance exam and marriage classes :)
 

IntoxicatingToxin

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
7,638
Media
0
Likes
250
Points
283
Location
Kansas City (Missouri, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
I agree that people give up too easily... and I firmly believe that one of the reasons is because many people today have a very romanticized idea of what "love" is. I don't know if it's television/media that has caused this or what, but I've noticed a LOT of people (especially younger folk like me) who think that relationships should just happen, and that they should be near perfect... any arguments are quickly and easily dissolved, feelings for each other never waver or change, and that nothing is ever argued about because they are better than that. Know what I have to say about that?

Get the fuck over it.

Seriously. :smile:
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
I also don't see marriage as being the same as it was in my Grand Parents and Great Parents generation.

And for that reason I don't think we should think of the assets in the same way either. In the past, it was OK to endow with all your worldly goods, but that only made sense because the union was pretty much till death and it really meant something. Now, if you are out of there in five, I don't see why either party should expect to take half of someone else's lifetime worth.
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
121
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Neither do I, but I don't see why anyone should have invested 20 years, 25 years in a marriage in which they supported their partner in making a good life for themselves, then the marriage ends and it's only one of the partners who reaps the rewards they both worked towards.
 

SassySpy

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,257
Media
17
Likes
139
Points
208
Location
Seattle USA,
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
I also don't see marriage as being the same as it was in my Grand Parents and Great Parents generation.

And for that reason I don't think we should think of the assets in the same way either. In the past, it was OK to endow with all your worldly goods, but that only made sense because the union was pretty much till death and it really meant something. Now, if you are out of there in five, I don't see why either party should expect to take half of someone else's lifetime worth.

I totally agree. But then, I am fiercely proud and would never stoop to even wanting, much less taking, material worth I hadn't earned- and not on my back, btw :tongue: LTR's Ive had in the past ended with me only taking what was mine when the rel started, nothing more. Though I have known gold-diggers of both genders and just find them sad and shallow.
Its just too bad anyone enters into a union even remotely considering they may be 'out of there in five', doncha think?:confused:
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Well the current stats are 50% ending within five years.

As everyone is being personal, I have made my way in the world, it doesn't matter if I am a man or a woman str8 or gay, but as it stands, if I attempt a marriage and it fails within a short period of time, I could lose half of what I have achieved before I met that person and half of what my family has achieved.

I don't think that that is right.

If there are kids, then it's a whole different situation and SP, I agree 20 or 25 years is a different situation as well. Pre nups should take all these things into account.
 

Gillette

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Posts
6,214
Media
4
Likes
95
Points
268
Age
52
Location
Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
First off, Congratulations, SassySpy! My best wishes for a long and happy marriage together.

I see people now getting married, setting up homes together and they go into it with this attitude that it's temporary, that this relationship will do if something better doesn't come along. At the first sign of trouble they leave the relationship. I'm divorced but I worked damned hard to make my marriage work, and when I entered into it I believed that it would last for ever. People make pre-nups, to me that's entering into a marriage with the attitude that you don't expect it to work, that you have no faith in it. Their sex lives get a bit boring and instead of working together to make that better, spicing it up one on one their first thought is to bring someone else into it. A relationship should be about two people. Some people make open marriages work, that's always been the case, but it's not been the norm but now an interest in cuckoldry, in swinging, in getting into a relationship on the understanding sexual fidelity won't be a part of it seems to be common place. People get married and although you still have a right to some things that are exclusively your own you should think of yourself as a couple, a unit and work together to keep things interesting.

Just a few random thoughts, what are yours?

I think prenuptual agreements do unfortunately suggest that the marriage will end but they are not an indication that it will. I don't think you need to have much wealth to want one either. If you so much as own your own home it's an intelligent thing to do. I'm going to go so far and say that I would be concerned that a man who wasn't aware of the importance of a prenup would be similarly lacking of caution in other areas. Conducting business on a handshake is a noble idea but it won't hold up in court.

I completely agree with the fidelity issue. I can't wrap my head around the concept of sharing your partner and I don't wish to. Nor would I be happy if my partner was comfortable sharing me with another.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,713
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
If I married a woman with family assets, I would not consider them mine in any way. If we had kids, I would consider them our kid's inheritance from her side of the family. If they came to me through tragedy, I would consider myself their guardian for the kids and if there weren't any kids, frankly I would hand them back to any of her family, or be happy that she left them to her family anyway.
Agreed.

So, I would happily sign a pre nup if I married a wealthy woman.
Are you sure you'd feel this way if you weren't financially solvent?
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Agreed.


Are you sure you'd feel this way if you weren't financially solvent?

I was thinking about that and I am concluding, why not? I would be leaving with what I had to start with. Why should I expect to benefit financially just because I am having a relationship with someone?

And that's what it boils down to I think. We have an expectation that marriage is more than a relationship - but why?

Please don't forget that I am only talking about situations where kids aren't involved. But if you had a wealthy BF who took you to the best restaurants and on luxury holidays, you wouldn't expect him to keep paying for you to do this with your new BF even if you had been going out with him for five years. So why if you had been married for two should it be different?
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,713
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
I was thinking about that and I am concluding, why not? I would be leaving with what I had to start with. Why should I expect to benefit financially just because I am having a relationship with someone?
Well, that's my point exactly. I don't think loving, long lasting relationships begin with the intent of financial gain or, at least, they shouldn't IMO. When you decide to bind yourself to someone, legally or no, the hope is that you're creating a lasting partnership where everything is shared "for better or for worse".

But this is why i'm of two minds about prenups. On one hand, a person could say that if their partner truly loved them, then they shouldn't have a problem with signing one. After all, your partner is being responsible and you should admire them for that, right? But on the other hand, it still implies that a lack of trust exists. No point in conducting a relationship without complete trust.

And that's what it boils down to I think. We have an expectation that marriage is more than a relationship - but why?
I talked about this with another member of the board. Money is a taboo subject for many people. Money can change the nature of a relationship, whether an abundance or lack thereof. Hell, look at lottery winners. Classic examples of what happens when you give the average bloke a huge chunk of money. They are often overwhelmed and preyed upon by vultures who want their own piece of that newfound pie. Sadly, some end up penniless with nothing but broken relationships in the rubble. Someone who is used to living a meager existence doesn't understand the concept of investment, stock portfolios, and simply living off the interest. Couples fight about money more than anything so it's imperative they discuss their views on financial matters to make sure they are of one mind. If a contract is necessary to make them feel safe, then it's probably a good idea. But if each person has different views, spending habits, and financial goals, then the relationship is probably doomed from the start.

Please don't forget that I am only talking about situations where kids aren't involved. But if you had a wealthy BF who took you to the best restaurants and on luxury holidays, you wouldn't expect him to keep paying for you to do this with your new BF even if you had been going out with him for five years. So why if you had been married for two should it be different?

The difference depends on the agreement between the parties involved in the relationship. I've dated men who were college poor, middle class, rich, and obnoxiously wealthy. In all instances, they knew I didn't expect them to pay for anything. When they offered, I graciously accepted. When my ex and I divorced, I hired a lawyer because we made an agreement that if I helped him through graduate school, he would see to it that I finished my degree. Well, he got his degree but bailed out before I could get mine. He left with considerably more income, earning power, medical benefits, etc.
I didn't expect to live a life of excess after the divorce but I certainly wanted the resources to pay my bills and forge ahead with a new life.

Case in point: Paul McCartney and his ex, Heather. He's worth, what, a few gazillion? I think she's entitled to enough money to support herself and her child in the manner to which they were accustomed but she doesn't deserve half his income after four years of marriage.