Posted on 09/18/2005 3:05:48 AM PDT by Caipirabob
Over a casual dinner, Rachel Kaplan turned to her boyfriend and asked, "You're open for a prenup, right?"
Darren Waldohlz, 38, a partner in a successful speed-dating business, admits he was caught off guard. But he said he realized a prenuptial agreement would protect the house he owns, too.
"It's not that I plan to get divorced," says Kaplan, 23, a single mom from Fort Lauderdale, who has a sizable inheritance. "I have to protect myself and my daughter."
While men are still more likely to seek a prenup, "women are becoming a more dominant force," said attorney Alan Braverman, who has offices in Fort Lauderdale and Boynton Beach.
Experts attribute the change to women marrying later or more than once.
"It's not uncommon in today's world that women are entering marriages with assets and stock options," said matrimonial attorney Jacqueline Valdespino, in Coral Gables. "Now both sides have equal bargaining power."
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
That's why it's always important to get your prospective spouse really liquored up at least once before you decide to marry them. Gotta find out what demons are lurking just under the surface.
In your case, BTW... I found you have nothing to worry about. :-)
LOL - Good, cuz I've never seen him really drunk, he tends to teeter over before I can get much in him....
I hope you're having fun.
You've angered both traditional friend and foe of mine here.
I'll confess pardner, while you may mean well....your sexual realpolitik stuff is just a bit over the top.
Most of us transcend our anthropological limitations on occasion.
A real man is responsible for his spawn even if he despises the mother.
I know....I've been doing that for 12 years now and I really really loathe her.
Too many irresponsible men screwing around with irresponsible women has decimated some cultures in the west....and it's harmed society overall demonstrably.
I think men should be daddies and women should be mommies and really don't care about modern logic.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Whether it was a tiny tribe,or a small community, of an Empire, society and what you'd like to call THE STATE, or whatever, has always and EVER been involved in marriages. Religions and especially Christianity, were not all that much involved in marriages much, except for Judaism.
Marriage, is and has always been one of the central conscripts of RIGHTS OF PASSAGE. And the reason that formal wedding ceremonies, even if they were only for one year and a day, as was the case in ancient British Isles "handfastings", were performed IN PUBLIC and with witnesses, so that the couple would be recognized as belonging to each other.
Though, truth to tell, in Medieval times, there were men who gave girls woven grass rings, promise, "before God" ( in a field, or such ) that they were "their husbands" and then, when they'd had their way, left the girl and almost said "nyaaaaaaaaaaaaa nyaaaaaaaaaaa...I didn't mean it" .
Until very recent time, marriages, even between the poor, were NOT for love, but to strengthen land and/or property holdings, some kind of alliances, and the like. Marriage also makes for a stable society and should be a protector of women and children, keeping the "state"/ government/community from being responsible for the children and in ancient Israel, widows.
It has been proven that married men live longer than unmarried men do, BTW. So, your life expectancy and happiness quotient, are extremely low, dear.
What a total creep this guy is! Too bad it looks as though the mods are going to let him stay. Demeaning b@st@rd anyway!
Go wardaddy!
I had plenty of sex without commitment.
But I also had sex that required commitment.
Not sure either was better than the other.
But loving who you're having sex with sure beats having sex with someone you hate.
When I was a young buck, I could sleep with liberal whiney chicks if they were pretty. Now....no way....absolutely. That shrill fembot crap would ruin even Monica Belluci for me.
I actually lived with a Columbia professor who bristled when I opened doors or called her darling.
Hell with all that....life's too short.
I think AOR digs a fight every now and then.
He's got half of FR's feline contingent on his trail.
LOL...oh the wonders of such a damned big chat room.
What "bias" would that be, dear?
I don't "hate" men. I've been happily married for close to 38 1/2 years, during which time, neither my husband nor myself has ever cheated on the other. And unlike YOU, my husband isn't scared to death of intelligent, forceful women.
"OBJECTIVITY"? YOU HAVE NONE !
You feel that it is your right and privilege to engage in sexual intercourse with any female who is willing to open her legs to you, but that any child who might ensue from such a coupling is NO responsibility of yours and that such a female, who gets pregnant or not, is unfit for you to marry. But any unwed female, virgin or not, who reaches her late 40s , or so, should become some man's mistress. Have I left anything pertinent out?
How old are you and WHY do you hate women so much? Your mother had affairs, didn't spend much time adoring you, as you feel is your due, no girl/woman will date you and never has...?
BRAVO! :-)
Good for you, ma'am. I've noticed a decrease in reasonable conversation on this site lately, mostly because nobody challenges paleolithic idjits. That was a masterful recap.
not being responsible for life one creates is indefensible
You two think that it is only the men who can be the wealthy person coming into a marriage? Or the only one who put so much into schooling that needed to be considered?
I am the one who went to a higher learning facility...I am the one who was capable of getting the higher paying job in my last marriage. My (ex) husband worked as a trailer park maintenance man...didn't even finish school or get his GED. You two sound very bigoted against women.
Neither do I suffer fools lightly.
Exactly so and makes a man a rake AND a cad, should it be his wont to ignore his progeny; gotten in or out of wedlock.
Tell me, just WHAT does this accomplish, except to get us angry at one another,instill bad feelings toward each other, and drive people away? When the FACT is: that both men and women seem to use and abuse each other nowdays. Sure some women use men, as a "money ticket", and some men use women as a "bed partner", and vice -versa. But for some out there, to basically say "that there is no reason for marriage, nowdays " and "you can get it without commitment", and so on, -- That is just stupid. Sure SOME men (and women) here think that marriage is an outmoded concept, and that one should "just have fun, without fear of commitment", BUT TO ME, THAT KIND OF ATTITUDE, REALLY CHEAPENS THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE, TO A NON-ENTITY!! THEN,people here resort to calling each other names and hurting each other, over this topic-- THIS is just the height of STUPID!!!
TO ALL:: "LIGHTEN UP, FRANCIS"!!!!!!!!
But that was the whole point of my post, which I thought was perfectly clear.
Perhaps when you looked at my post, you did not read what you saw.
You're a little "light" in the info department. NK just demanded that American build them a nuclear plant, or else they won't give up their bomb program; thus throwing everything that previously was agreed upon into a cocked hat.
Screwy Louie Farrakhan and his minions are of NO consequence and Louie's little toady was also on Sean's radio show this afternoon, where both parties parroted the exact sames words, word for word, as they did on Hannity & Colmes tonight! And YOU think that that's news? LOL
If nothing else, this topic is always relevant and will always be fun to hash out no matter who is preseident, no matter who controls Congress, etc. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.