Drifterwood
Superior Member
Thanks, snooz and bliss, for saying what I got too angry to say.
The gold digger that I was talking about is a man.
Thanks, snooz and bliss, for saying what I got too angry to say.
The gold digger that I was talking about is a man.
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:
uke: What was it exactly that attracted you to such a man in the first place?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.
I understand why you say that now; but I think you are too phenomenal a woman to be alone for very long.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 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 :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! 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.
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.
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.
[/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.....
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.
They do if you are a member of most organized religions.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
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 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?
Agreed.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.
Are you sure you'd feel this way if you weren't financially solvent?So, I would happily sign a pre nup if I married a wealthy woman.
Agreed.
Are you sure you'd feel this way if you weren't financially solvent?
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".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?
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.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?