So.., how can we do away with a situation like marriage.., which gives threat value to either partner.., uneven control and power.., and is a disaster waiting to happen by having one person's needs and wants unsatisfied.., and then that person backlashing by refusing to satisfy the other person's needs and wants.., and so on and so forth? How can we prevent this tragedy and breakdown in love and caring for the other person?

Defunct economists and lawyers have been working for years to do just this.., although it has evolved by accident.., it is perhaps the most useful tool in creating a marriage with all the right incentives in place for both people to truly care about eachother.., never neglect the other person or get lazy during the marriage.., and continue to love their partner..

Pre-nuptial agreements:

Where originally created and intended to shield wealthy individual's assets and income from the force of law through the divorce process.. but through time.., have evolved into very useful documents which we are seeing in states like California, Texas, and New York being used hand-to-hand with marriages.. even by individuals with very little in future income or net assets..

In effect.., when you remove the costs or benefits from divorce.., and truly make it a soft landing.., an equal.., fair.., pre-agreed-upon terms ahead of time.., prior to marriage.., and obviously prior to divorce.., when you do that.., then you are also taking away any threat value from either person.., you are providing all the right legal and economic incentives (ZERO legal or economic incentives) for two people to truly put in the same effort during marriage.., as they did before marriage.., to see that the needs and wants of their partner are met.., that their partner is satisfied.., happy.., and that love continues to be genuine.., not some act that is put on for the public to see.., and then turned off once they get home.. (because caring.., and love for the other person.. your children.., and your family.., and the only incentives that should be in place.., or else it's not marriage.., it's indentured servitude.., slavery.., prison.., for whichever person is on the wrong end)

You really can't make any kind of strong argument against this type of pre-nuptial agreement.., if anyone has anything but a different view of what two people should be like during marriage.., then the other person has only but to question if they really want to be married to such a person who has these views.., to disagree with this notion is to imply either (you just want to get married to stop putting in all this effort into making the other person happy.., and to just relax and be lazy.., just totally let go and enjoy yourself.., with only token consideration.., care., or love for the other person from time to time).., and that's just not a romantic idea of marriage at all..

I think you have enough to work with OP.., good luck with your paper..

Best,

GrkScorp

__________________
If you can't stop the Wind, then you can't stop the Storm.

There are many things in this world that have no objective "meaning," but are nonetheless useful for their symbolic nature. Why should we have names? I could get along perfectly fine just saying "Hi I'm me, here's my phone number." The reason we name our children is the same reason we get married: to make it official. An official person, an official couple, etc. You can deconstruct modernity as much as you want but you cannot escape the awkwardness of having a "girlfriend" for 20 years. Even if you choose to not go through a traditional ceremony, it is likely that your long-term partner eventually be considered your "wife." In this sense you are married by default.

I knew I didnt want to marry kyles father. He's an ass. So I felt we were better off on our own rather than with someone who denied it was his child anyway. (paternity tests stated otherwise-dick). I had the romantic idea of being married for years. But soon knew oh hell no. It wasnt until I was in my young 30's my heart and mind changed. I'm glad I got married. I definetly agree though having 2 loving parents is better than one, but it doesnt always work to the best situation. Having my husband come into my sons life so late, it gave some sensiblity of having someone who does care/love for him, because he knows his real father doesnt.

Marriage to me wasnt about romance. It was about growing old together with my best friend. Knowing we could count on one another and trust eachother would do right by one another. The financial aspect, of course its better, I married an attorney, HE is well off, he had made my life richer and has given me things which I wouldnt otherwise be able to afford. However, my life was at its fullest when I was single and I was completely comfortable with my lifestyle and was surely happy. My husband just put the icing on my life. I have a partner whom I adore, and find incredibly talented, smart, intriguing, etc. I guess the bottom line although I know I could live without him, I choose not to.

__________________
everything happens for a reason...

I'm totally for renewable marriage contracts, I think I posted about this a few years ago. I'll try to find the link.

FWIW, I do think that, theoretically, one shouldn't need marriage to keep a stable environment for kids. But I think the statistics may not uphold that. I'd like to see the #s on splits b/t parents who got married & didn't. I'm inclined to think splits are more prevalent for non-married couples w/kids.

There are SOME benefits to making marriage a difficult contract to break, in other words, if a stable environment for offspring is the main concern. Ask anyone who's been married for > 10 years. Almost all of them have gone through that 'i'm gonna walk' period & might have if not for the pain of divorce.

Its a good thing, IMO. Western culture lacks stick-to-it-ness.

Grk, I didn't read your entire post, but the portion about pre-nups in California caught my eye. Unless you have pre-existing assets in California, there is no need for a pre-nup. By default, everything earned during the marriage is considered community-property with 50/50 ownership.

EDIT - hey indi, I was going to thank your post, but I'm not allowed. weird.

__________________

Its not the one I remember but it makes the point. FWIW, I think 3 years is too short. 7 - 10 years should be the period. Everyone knows that the blush on the flowers often lasts around 5 (less if kids happen sooner):

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...romoid=googlep

Germany was the first country to make such a proposal.., in response to increasing divorce rates.., the proposal was worded more or less as follows:

"this agreement will be void after seven years unless both members agree to renew it permanently"

End of story.., pretty simple.., it avoided the problem of being renewed automatically and waiting for both people to raise an objection.., so instead.., unless both agreed to renew it.., the marriage would automatically expire.. (after a certain member of German politics came into office.., let's just say that law never passed)

Where you see benefits.., I see wrong incentives.. the law or economics should never hold two people together.., love is two people WANTING to be together and care about eachother.., and make things work.., and take care of their children.., and maintain a good family.., and a healthy marriage.., not two people FORCED to be together by any power or force beyond their own choice & free will..

You can't just look at things from the surface.., you have to explore deep into the problem.., and get to the core of "why" you see things taking place.., It's easy to say.., people go through a "i'm gonna walk" period.., and throw legal chains and economic costs on those people to keep them from doing that.., that's one solution.., but an other way to see it.., is to ask yourself.. "why does that happen?".., it's very rarely just one person's fault.., it has to do with both people.., and during marriage.., where one person can't take it anymore and thinks "i'm gonna walk".., the other person thinks "haha! sure you are.., and where are you going to go? divorce court? and then to the welfare line? sit down honey and shut up.., you're not going anywhere".., and it's that dynamic that breeds an unhealthy and unhappy marriage..

Instead of creating all these legal and economic incentives for people to behave this way.., we actually have the tools.., to break down all those incentives.., and allow for people to stay together.., purely by free choice.. telling eachother.., yes.., I love you.., and I want you to be my wife.., and we'll walk around calling eachother by a different name.., and we'll have children together.., but let it be known.., that the only thing holding us together (besides our children.., if we happen to have any).., is our love for eachother.., and since that's the case.., since that is what is holding us together.., that is something we will both pay much attention to.., never ignore.., never neglect.., never take for granted.., never get lazy.., always care.., always strive to satisfy eachother's needs and wants.., make eachother happy.., be supporive and motivate eachother.., and love eachother.., until death do us part..

Best,

GrkScorp

__________________
If you can't stop the Wind, then you can't stop the Storm.

Thank you for the lesson in California state law

Yes.., absolutely.., but what happens when a guy who owns his information technology or (.com) company meets an aspiring actress or model.., and they want to get married? Does he really want to revert to the California default when after one year.., two years.., three years.., he's bringing in $1,000,000 a year? Is it really "fair" that she should be entitled half? Why? Is he earning half of it because of her in any way? Or was it his education and career development prior to the marriage taking place that has caused him to earn this income? Not everyone wants to revert to a state default.., unless both people comming into the marriage are not putting in significantly different amounts of assets or future earnings.., then the state default is not always what one should count on..

__________________
If you can't stop the Wind, then you can't stop the Storm.

The law doesn't hold ppl together, GS. Divorce IS possible in this society. It just gives couples pause before making rash decisions.

Here in Canada, you can't get any divorce unless you've been physically separated for a period of 1 year. Its called a 'cooling off' period & I think it works.

The advantage of the renewable contract, IMO, isn't to destabilize marriage or to make divorce easier, its to encourage couples to invest more into their relationship, consistently, by realizing that it isn't a 'done deal'. I think this will ensure BOTH partners get what they need. Your example was of a lazy wife, but there are just as many lazy husbands out there (beer guzzling couch potatoes) who stop making an effort once that ring is placed.

Yes, GS, it is fair. I know several dot com guys who were raking in the cash & then became dependent on their wives incomes when the bubble burst. Spouses get sick, job status changes, family commitments change... children come on the scene & *someone* has to work less to raise them (how do you put a price tag on that?). Maybe one spouse makes more but the other is an awesome investor/administrator of that income. Point is you can't easily predict what's going to happen during the marriage period & you can't easily tease apart who did what during the marriage. But that's a part of the marriage contract (in sickness/health, richer/poorer, etc).

Before & after is individual owned. During marriage should be shared. Otherwise, don't get married.

I don't agree with you. You are making the assumption that the only thing of value is that which is worth money, and I don't agree. I think the law assumes that people partner up with their equal, all things considered. Why would you marry someone who wasn't your equal?

For the record, I favor prenups for people who are bringing preexisting children into a marriage (to protect their inheritance). And if people don't mind signing them I don't care, but I wouldn't.

__________________

You can't be serious.., it actually does a very good job of doing just that.., people go on for years.., "trying" to work things out.., not because they love eachother anymore.., not because there is any romantic incentive to work things out.., they are genuinely unhappy.., and know they will be unhappy in the long-run.., but they "try".., because they are afraid of going through a complicated and costly divorce process.., so they would rather cheat.., neglect.., throw bouts of rage.., etc.., than ever be happy.., divorce is not always a bad thing.., people do make mistakes.., and they should reserve the right and option to walk away from those mistakes.., and the people who didn't make a mistake.., should not be forced to bear any incentives poorly designed to keep EVERYONE married together.., their love for eachother.., and their children.., should be the only two things holding them together..

All it gives.., is me the right to collect a lavish and borderline criminal fee.., and people who have made a mistake in marriage.., a way out.., instead of being trapped with the wrong person for the rest of their life..

Great.., and this is ALL stuff you can work into a pre-nuptial agreement.. and yes.., it's a great idea.., and would most definitely filter out any of those "in-the-moment-divorce-urges"..

Also.., renewable marriage contracts every 3 years isn't exactly such a bad idea.. which leads me to wonder.. some interesting questions..

When you.., as a woman.., think about marriage.., what does it mean for you? Why is it important to you?

Best,

GrkScorp

__________________
If you can't stop the Wind, then you can't stop the Storm.

GS, this kind of post makes me think you've never actually seen a healthy, successful long-term marriage.

Absolute words like "never & always" have no place in a marriage, lol. If you get married you WILL do all those things. But not all the time.

Here's a thought for you to ponder since you're so into self-awareness: you may be happy with YOU right now, but YOU right now is nothing like the YOU that you'll become in a marriage. That's a completely different 'you' that you'll create w/your partner. If you're thinking they must simply 'take you as you are', now in all your wonderful glory (or else!), you are in for a rude awakening.

Think about it.

A pop-star singer who was discovered with talent.., made it big.., and as a result of everything she did (prior) to any marriage taking place.., she will now be collecting royalties and endorsements for the rest of her life.., as a result of what she did on her own.., she may get sick.., or become psychotic.., but that's money she will still be entitled to..

Now.., she falls in love with a back-up dancer.., gets married.., and stays with him for a while.. During that time.., she makes some new songs.., some new deals.., purchases some more property.., and collects some more money.., all the result of her success (prior) to the marriage.., having nothing to do with this retarded loser back-up dancer who is living the life now that he's with her..

Divorce comes.., give him 50%.., "fair"? By what definition of the word? How and why? There's nothing fair about it.. And so.., Britney is a perfect example of how wrong it is to rely on state law for these matters.. because the reality is.., that while people do get sick.., and things to happen in between.., one person is simply offering more than the other most of the times.., and if you would both like to agree to what is "fair".., then you may do so prior to the marriage.., because case after case shows.., that regaurdless of "fault" or "no fault" divorce.., there's rarely any perfect agreement after marriage..

We all want to be that back-up dancer who sticks around for a while and gets to take home his lucky jackpot for doing nothing.., but nobody wants to be Britney.., and that's an example of where state law controls.., and no pre-nupt was in place.., she got screwed.. so much so.., that she went crazy.. "fair"?

__________________
If you can't stop the Wind, then you can't stop the Storm.