Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: I Trust You, But...


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: I Trust You, But... Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 6:06:59 AM   
lovingpet


Posts: 4270
Joined: 6/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
I guess I really shouldn't have left the "slave contract" barn door open. I don't have any problem with anyone using them if it is a tool that they enjoy, though I don't have an opinion of my own on that particular matter. I haven't had the need to form one and probably won't any time soon. I guess my slant is more toward the legal nity gritties of life. For people planning to be with each other for the long haul, it is important to make sure that the state can't butt into affairs that will affect each other's well being. Despite this being the thrust of the reason for some legalities to be enacted, I find that they are often taken the wrong way. What's meant as a loving act is misconstrued as a distrustful one. I would like to know why and how to avoid it.


You'd be the one to answer that, not us. You've already stated your agreement that a pre-nup is something you perceive as indicating a lack of trust.

Why do *you* feel that's the case?



I tend to believe a pre nup in particular tends to be about a lack of trust. Most people demanding one have less than stellar reasons behind them. They have a notoriously bad reputation. In the end, I could care less about signing something like a pre nup inasmuch as it comes to the fact that it is a legal document. If it were simply there for some legality, then it harms me not at all because I do not plan on placing myself in a position where the contract would become active in the first place. Since it sends off warning bells in my head because of its nature, however, you'd better believe I will be seeing to it that the thing will protect MY interests as well because the other person just formed an "escape hatch". The chances of the other person doing something to make the contract active is much higher in my eyes. Chances are I would not go through with a marriage until the other person believed they no longer needed or wanted to have an out. It's about making sure and sound decisions. I would even, sadly, perhaps, leave a relationship in which that decision would never be reached.

I don't see these other things on such a plane. Wills/estates, custodial arrangements, deeds and titles, insurance beneficiaries, etc. are simply different. I see them as protective of the other not of self. Yet there are those who would fly into a mess over them like the pre nup above. I don't even see the ole slave contract on such a plane either. As I understand a "slave contract", it is a set of expectations and a listing of what is and is not permissible inside the relationship, a framework. If someone wanted to lay out 500 ways for me to wind up out on my ass, they wouldn't be the partner for me. I see it as an attempt to clarify and strengthen an existing relationship rather than as a plan of exit. Maybe some work them as an escape clause, but once again, that wouldn't be the partner for me. My concept of a slave contract and these legal documents listed above are things that should draw two people closer in some way. It is linking them in a vast web, but not to capture (certainly that should have already been accomplished), but as a safety net out of protectiveness. I don't think this purpose holds true in most cases of a pre nup.

lovingpet

(in reply to Loki45)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 6:59:32 AM   
porcelaine


Posts: 5020
Joined: 7/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

I tend to believe a pre nup in particular tends to be about a lack of trust. Most people demanding one have less than stellar reasons behind them.


interesting comment. but then you say...

quote:

I don't see these other things on such a plane. Wills/estates, custodial arrangements, deeds and titles, insurance beneficiaries, etc. are simply different.


which of course relate to assets and other things that need to be protected. however...

quote:

My concept of a slave contract and these legal documents listed above are things that should draw two people closer in some way. It is linking them in a vast web, but not to capture (certainly that should have already been accomplished), but as a safety net out of protectiveness. I don't think this purpose holds true in most cases of a pre nup.


so let me see if i get this. you are perfectly comfortable drafting documents together which will protect assets and provide for children etc. your issue comes into play if the other party seeks to protect these things outside of you? if the prenup in question provided for you financially, would you be opposed to signing it? or is your resignation related to the belief that if the relationship dissolved you would not receive your share of the assets instead? also, if you entered a relationship with significant assets, would you require your partner to sign a prenup? if no, why not?

porcelaine


_____________________________

His will; my fate.

(in reply to lovingpet)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 7:07:38 AM   
fluffypet61


Posts: 28879
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline 		FR - Without reading the whole thread...
 
My Father and step-mom have a prenup they entered into when they got married in their 60's.  In it they agreed that their estates, up to that time, were separate.  This was a way of making their children and grandchildren feel more comfortable with their marriage.   
 
About slave contracts - i see no way of enforcing them. 

_____________________________

fluffy

"an exuberant example of libido continuing along regardless of age" - Kia

"Commandment Number One for any truly civilized society is this: Let people be different." -David Grayson


(in reply to porcelaine)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 8:39:48 AM   
lovingpet


Posts: 4270
Joined: 6/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

I tend to believe a pre nup in particular tends to be about a lack of trust. Most people demanding one have less than stellar reasons behind them.


interesting comment. but then you say...

quote:

I don't see these other things on such a plane. Wills/estates, custodial arrangements, deeds and titles, insurance beneficiaries, etc. are simply different.


which of course relate to assets and other things that need to be protected. however...

quote:

My concept of a slave contract and these legal documents listed above are things that should draw two people closer in some way. It is linking them in a vast web, but not to capture (certainly that should have already been accomplished), but as a safety net out of protectiveness. I don't think this purpose holds true in most cases of a pre nup.


so let me see if i get this. you are perfectly comfortable drafting documents together which will protect assets and provide for children etc. your issue comes into play if the other party seeks to protect these things outside of you? if the prenup in question provided for you financially, would you be opposed to signing it? or is your resignation related to the belief that if the relationship dissolved you would not receive your share of the assets instead? also, if you entered a relationship with significant assets, would you require your partner to sign a prenup? if no, why not?

porcelaine



Pretty simple really. If I am entering into a long term, commited relationship, I have come to believe that I do not need protecting from my partner nor should he/she need such with regard to me. What am I going to do? Take all our collective stuff and run? If someone actually believes I would, I should hope they would both do us a favor and end the relationship. If I thought for one minute my partner was willing to leave me high and dry after much physical, mental, and emotional investment in each other, I would not be going through with making a greater commitment and may even have to leave the relationship. I don't need an out for making a bad decision. I will deal with those consequences if/when they come. I don't need the legal system to protect me from my own mistakes.

However determining division of assets and the placement of children prior to the need arising is protective to both partners, the children (if there are any), and any other outside family or organizations that have stake in such matters. It's too late once a partner has passed away or other extreme circumstances have occured. In some areas, things like power of attorney cannot even be exercised in some very vital areas unless all legal paperwork was in order some years prior to the need to execute certain functions. Asking someone to sign a power of attorney when they are still very well and capable may seem suspicious to some, but if one digs into the law, there is very good reason for it.

The thing is, I could care less about material stuff. I'm not worried about getting my fair share or escaping a bad situation with all my life's accumulations unscathed. Frankly, if I made a poor decision and came out with the short end of the stick, I just see that as paying my dues to learn a valuable lesson for the future. Yes, I realize that in the hands of the unscrupulous that this could leave me without a penny to my name and no roof over my head. I have friends and family and a good mind for picking myself back up and making a go of things one more time for a reason. I don't need nor do I necessarily want anything from someone else except their loyalty and love. If I have lost those, I don't want a damn thing from them. I would hope to choose a partner who viewed me likewise.

lovingpet

(in reply to porcelaine)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 8:41:31 AM   
lovingpet


Posts: 4270
Joined: 6/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fluffypet61

FR - Without reading the whole thread...
 
My Father and step-mom have a prenup they entered into when they got married in their 60's.  In it they agreed that their estates, up to that time, were separate.  This was a way of making their children and grandchildren feel more comfortable with their marriage.   
 
About slave contracts - i see no way of enforcing them. 


This makes a lot of sense and really had nothing to do with the relationship itself. To my way of thinking, it was doing what was necessary to shut everybody up and let them live their happily ever after. This I could live with.

lovingpet

(in reply to fluffypet61)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 9:12:48 AM   
porcelaine


Posts: 5020
Joined: 7/24/2006
Status: offline 		those are your beliefs. you can't tell the other party they should feel differently or fault them if they do. people come into situations with assets. some are hard earned, others are inherited. if he doesn't have the mindset you possess and a willingness to throw caution to the wind and possibly become penniless due to a bad decision, doesn't imply his inability to trust or that he's a bad person either.

it seems as if you have your own ideas and expect the other persons to line up in tandem. but that rarely happens. just because you're willing to expose yourself in this manner doesn't mean the other person should join the party. in fact, i find the greater the assets coming in, the less likely people are willing to take these sort of risks. i don't know your financial standing, but since i have a background in finance i can attest that your mindset is not common. in a perfect world these vehicles would be unnecessary, but the fact remains that relationships end and some partings can be down right unpleasant. i sincerely hope your situation works out in your favor.

porcelaine


_____________________________

His will; my fate.

(in reply to lovingpet)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 9:35:32 AM   
lovingpet


Posts: 4270
Joined: 6/19/2005
Status: offline 		Anything we need to accomplish isn't handled through a pre nup. It would be in these other matters, but we are not in any of these positions at all yet. I was simply curious.

As for these being my beliefs, yes they are. I have every right to them and some of the core reasons for me having such beliefs would almost have to be shared by someone I am going to have a deep, intimate relationship with. It is very much a part of who I am. My financial standing has nothing at all to do with my beliefs, richer or poorer they would remain. It has more to do with how I was raised and the beliefs I developed through my life and experiences I have had. No, it's not a common belief system with regard to such matters, but it is mine. Further, this is about far more than finances. I hold myself to a high level of self accountability. I dislike things that leave me an easy way out of the bed I created. I am not saying at all that using a pre nup is doing so, but its function tends to be one of making the end of a bad path easier. I just like bearing both the very good and very bad of my own decisions. Probably just a preference, but like any other, I get to have them. I sincerely hope that I never find I should have done this thing or that, but that's the learning curve I guess.

lovingpet

(in reply to porcelaine)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 9:51:23 AM   
porcelaine


Posts: 5020
Joined: 7/24/2006
Status: offline 		yes they are and you should own them. on the other hand the other party might feel differently for very valid reasons as well. not necessarily related to money at all. look at the broader concept. it could have been things he's seen or experienced directly/indirectly that colored his landscape, much like your own have colored yours. being able to meet in the middle is important and requires mutual respect and some give and take on both sides. just remember it may not mean anything against you if the topic ever comes up. best of luck.

porcelaine


_____________________________

His will; my fate.

(in reply to lovingpet)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 9:57:56 AM   
lovingpet


Posts: 4270
Joined: 6/19/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks! And that was the whole point of this thread! Things aren't always what they seem. If presented with a pre nup, I would have wanted to know all the why's. If anything, I try to keep an open mind and am very sensitive to the collateral effect of life on people. I don't know what the final outcome would have been, but if it were something I could live with as the reason for such, I just might have signed the thing. Like in fluffypet's example, I would have had no issue with the pre nup, though I think my descendents would have gotten an ass chewing for appearing to be such greedy little vultures (not saying that was the case at all, but it might have looked bad)! There is a time and place for everything. A pre nup is no exception. I just doubt I would find very many cases where I could live with the explanation personally. It is a good thing to be firm, but not unmoved.

lovingpet


(in reply to porcelaine)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 11:03:29 AM   
catize


Posts: 3020
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

 How do you feel about contracts (even legal ones) and their role within a D/s or M/s relationship? Is it fair to ask and still maintain pure trust? Or does it taint that trust to even consider such a thing?  


I often think that if it was expected that I stay home and not work (not likely, but …. )  I would require a contract.  At my age, and with my current seniority at work, I would forfeit financial independence as well as future employability.  It is more than a trust issue.  My retirement fund would be less.  Shit happens; death or disability to mention a few.  If I became disabled, my years of unemployment would affect my disability benefits.  
I realize a contract wouldn’t be a guarantee that I won’t end up living on the streets a number of years down the road, but it would certainly be better than no safety net at all.

< Message edited by catize -- 9/4/2009 11:05:10 AM >

_____________________________

"Power is real. But it's a lot less real if it's not perceived as power."
Robert Parker, Stranger in Paradise

(in reply to lovingpet)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 4:54:45 PM   
Loki45


Posts: 2100
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
I tend to believe a pre nup in particular tends to be about a lack of trust.


Why is that, though? I mean, generalizations aside, aren't the basics of a standard pre-nup basically saying what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours? What's wrong with that? I mean, other than the fact that it inhibits a materialistic girl's chances at getting "half," of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
Since it sends off warning bells in my head because of its nature, however, you'd better believe I will be seeing to it that the thing will protect MY interests as well because the other person just formed an "escape hatch".


But why do you see it as an escape hatch? And if the stanard agreement is basically as I stated before -- what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours -- how does that not protect your interests?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
The chances of the other person doing something to make the contract active is much higher in my eyes.


Why is that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
Chances are I would not go through with a marriage until the other person believed they no longer needed or wanted to have an out. It's about making sure and sound decisions. I would even, sadly, perhaps, leave a relationship in which that decision would never be reached.


And likewise, I'd end it if there were a refusal to sign. Women historically have their own "escape hatch" built into any relationship. It's called divorce. And from what I have seen, unless the man has concrete, irrefutable evidence of adultery on the woman's part, she gets "half." Sounds like there is a need for protection in that instance.

Based on your description of the document, mixed with what we all know about divorce in this day and age, the question is very simply -- who gets their interests protected? If there is a pre-nup, the man can be assured the woman isn't after his cash. If there isn't one, and the relationship goes south (stats say more than 50% end in divorce) the man's on the hook for 'half.' What guy in his right mind would take that bet? Those odds are worse than vegas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
I don't see these other things on such a plane. Wills/estates, custodial arrangements, deeds and titles, insurance beneficiaries, etc. are simply different. I see them as protective of the other not of self.


So you're fine with protecting assets in case of death, but not with protecting assets in case of divorce (again, more than 50% probability)?


_____________________________

"'Till the roof comes off, 'till the lights go out
'Till my legs give out, can't shut my mouth."

(in reply to lovingpet)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 5:16:39 PM   
catize


Posts: 3020
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Why is that, though? I mean, generalizations aside, aren't the basics of a standard pre-nup basically saying what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours? What's wrong with that? I mean, other than the fact that it inhibits a materialistic girl's chances at getting "half," of course. 


Or boys?  Women sometimes are the ones with money!
And a pre-nup could also  acknowledge the fact that whether the 'girl' or 'boy' contributed less moneey, or none at all, they did contribute their time and work and that should be protected.

_____________________________

"Power is real. But it's a lot less real if it's not perceived as power."
Robert Parker, Stranger in Paradise

(in reply to Loki45)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 5:20:30 PM   
lovingpet


Posts: 4270
Joined: 6/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
I tend to believe a pre nup in particular tends to be about a lack of trust.


Why is that, though? I mean, generalizations aside, aren't the basics of a standard pre-nup basically saying what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours? What's wrong with that? I mean, other than the fact that it inhibits a materialistic girl's chances at getting "half," of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
Since it sends off warning bells in my head because of its nature, however, you'd better believe I will be seeing to it that the thing will protect MY interests as well because the other person just formed an "escape hatch".


But why do you see it as an escape hatch? And if the stanard agreement is basically as I stated before -- what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours -- how does that not protect your interests?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
The chances of the other person doing something to make the contract active is much higher in my eyes.


Why is that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
Chances are I would not go through with a marriage until the other person believed they no longer needed or wanted to have an out. It's about making sure and sound decisions. I would even, sadly, perhaps, leave a relationship in which that decision would never be reached.


And likewise, I'd end it if there were a refusal to sign. Women historically have their own "escape hatch" built into any relationship. It's called divorce. And from what I have seen, unless the man has concrete, irrefutable evidence of adultery on the woman's part, she gets "half." Sounds like there is a need for protection in that instance.

Based on your description of the document, mixed with what we all know about divorce in this day and age, the question is very simply -- who gets their interests protected? If there is a pre-nup, the man can be assured the woman isn't after his cash. If there isn't one, and the relationship goes south (stats say more than 50% end in divorce) the man's on the hook for 'half.' What guy in his right mind would take that bet? Those odds are worse than vegas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
I don't see these other things on such a plane. Wills/estates, custodial arrangements, deeds and titles, insurance beneficiaries, etc. are simply different. I see them as protective of the other not of self.


So you're fine with protecting assets in case of death, but not with protecting assets in case of divorce (again, more than 50% probability)?



Well, in my view, divorce rates are so high because it's become so darn simple in a lot of ways. No fault divorces, pre nups, and even pre arranged custody agreements make it a pretty safe bet. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Meh...I'll just get a divorce. Times are really tough and I'm tired of this shit... calls the divorce attorney. Well damn, this isn't what I signed up for...to divorce court we go. I will not say that divorces don't have a great deal of hurt and damage in their wakes even with all these things in place, but it is much more viable an option than it was before these things were commonplace. I think a guy or gal with considerable assets should be very wise about choosing a partner. If you're so afraid someone's only in it for the money or has the capacity to sooner hang you out to dry than be sensible, then perhaps that is someone to avoid in the first place. It is a matter of making good decisions instead of covering your ass because you aren't sure you are. I don't want to be in that level of a relationship with someone that thinks I am capable of doing things like that. Sounds like a clear lack of trust to me AND it sounds like someone who doesn't know me or my character at all. Why on earth would we be getting hitched in the first place?

Further, the probability of death in a marriage relationship would be 100% if people were fulfilling the "traditional" vows. I go in planning to honor such, so those interest absolutely must be protected. One of us is likely to precede the other, so someone's going to be left with a life to live regardless of whether affairs were put in order or not. On occasion, both go at the same time. If there are children or other family that needs provision they are screwed without these things. Put simply, this isn't just for my protection. It would be for my partner's benefit and others as we each had responsibilities. I bet on honoring my end of the deal to the very best of my ability. That means death is an inevitable part of our relationship at some point.

This is only my view. I would listen to a partner I cared greatly about and try to understand why this was something that seemed necessary. It is a hard call how I might feel, but I know there aren't many circumstances where I could be convinced that it wasn't indicating an issue within the relationship that needed to be handled prior to making such a commitment in the first place. I would likely want to work on the issues, postpone the proceedings, and hopeful come to a point where it was no longer needed for some form of security. In a very slim set of circumstances I might still proceed and accept signing the stupid paper knowing I would not be the one that would cause it to have any bearing on the relationship. The senario you keep presenting doesn't do it for me though. You really shouldn't need protecting from someone you know well enough to have such a deeply intimate and long term commitment with. If that's what you thought of me, that you had to protect what is yours to assure that I was not in it for your money, then I'd be telling you to go take a flying leap. I don't take affronts to my character well, especially from someone who should know better. You don't know me, but I am sure you would know a person you planned to marry very well. How would it feel to have your character questions by someone who is supposed to know you so well? It would hurt like hell if it were me.

lovingpet


(in reply to Loki45)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 5:22:26 PM   
lovingpet


Posts: 4270
Joined: 6/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

quote:

Why is that, though? I mean, generalizations aside, aren't the basics of a standard pre-nup basically saying what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours? What's wrong with that? I mean, other than the fact that it inhibits a materialistic girl's chances at getting "half," of course. 


Or boys?  Women sometimes are the ones with money!
And a pre-nup could also  acknowledge the fact that whether the 'girl' or 'boy' contributed less moneey, or none at all, they did contribute their time and work and that should be protected.


Actually, I have run into quite a few people that wound up basically 50/50 due to this very kind of clause. A pre nup is a false failsafe sometimes.

lovingpet

(in reply to catize)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 5:27:39 PM   
Loki45


Posts: 2100
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: catize
Or boys?  Women sometimes are the ones with money!


Sometimes, but I am not a girl, so I spoke from where I was coming from. And unless I meet a millionaire woman....there's little chance of her making more than I will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize
And a pre-nup could also  acknowledge the fact that whether the 'girl' or 'boy' contributed less moneey, or none at all, they did contribute their time and work and that should be protected.


But not with "half." "Half" is a concept that baffles me. Look at Paul McCartney and his wife. He was married to her for what, 3 years or so. When they split, somehow she thinks she's entitled to untold millions. For what? Three years of being arm candy? I don't think so.


_____________________________

"'Till the roof comes off, 'till the lights go out
'Till my legs give out, can't shut my mouth."

(in reply to catize)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 5:46:36 PM   
Loki45


Posts: 2100
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
Well, in my view, divorce rates are so high because it's become so darn simple in a lot of ways.


Here will be an area where we disagree. I don't think divorce has become 'easier.' I think the laws about 'half' are why divorce is so prevalent. Before the big women's movement, women were stuck. They didn't work nearly as much as men and when they did get divorced, especially after a lengthy marriage, they were left in the cold with no job skills.

Now that women are as prevalent as men in the work force....now that they "don't need no man to support them" they realize they don't have to put up with much of what they used to feel they had to.

However, that's become one of those weird, double-edge swords. Now women have job skills, they can make their own money and thus don't have to rely on a man's money to support them. However, when they divorce, they still expect 'half.'

That's something I don't understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
No fault divorces, pre nups, and even pre arranged custody agreements make it a pretty safe bet. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Meh...I'll just get a divorce. Times are really tough and I'm tired of this shit... calls the divorce attorney. Well damn, this isn't what I signed up for...to divorce court we go.


Now I have to ask -- in what other area would you be expected to put up with something that you "Didn't sign up for?"

People take jobs that turn into something else....and so they quit because "This isn't what I signed up for." People enlist in the military and then get out because "This isn't what I signed up for." Why are instances like that ok to bail out of, but a life partner is not? If I meet someone and marry them, I expect to get what they showed me at the start of the relationship. If they become a manipulative, raving psycho gash....there's no way in hell I'm staying. Why shorten my life with that much stress if I don't have to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
It is a matter of making good decisions instead of covering your ass because you aren't sure you are. I don't want to be in that level of a relationship with someone that thinks I am capable of doing things like that. Sounds like a clear lack of trust to me AND it sounds like someone who doesn't know me or my character at all. Why on earth would we be getting hitched in the first place?


I've learned to think *everyone* is capable of something like that. History has shown me time and again that you *never* truly know someone. I have watched the sweet, giving personality of a girl turn literally on a dime. And this wonderful, good-hearted person I *thought* I knew became a raving, manipulative, abusive psycho gash.

I would be an absolute fool if I didn't protect myself in the future. Because history has shown me that a woman will tell me exactly what I want to here to get my guard down and then reveal that she was lying her ass off to me the whole time.

As to your final question in that paragraph -- Why on earth would we be getting hitched in the first place? I can only answer with "You're right.....we won't." As I said, history has shown me that it's just not smart, nor feasible to even consider it. And in order to even think that it might be a possibility, there will be a document signed where my significant other signs, in writing, that she is not after my money. If she can't meet me on that one term, then the relationship is either done or will simply continue without any of the legal ramifications that marriage brings.

You see the pre-nup as a lack of trust. I see it as a *proof* of trust. I am saying to the girl "You say that you love me. You say you want me and not my money. Prove your love to me. Sign the paper."

It's kinda like car shopping. The dealer will tell you anything you want to hear to sell you a car....but until you "get it in writing," it means nothing. If a girl really loves me, she'll "put it in writing." It's that simple.


_____________________________

"'Till the roof comes off, 'till the lights go out
'Till my legs give out, can't shut my mouth."

(in reply to lovingpet)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 7:05:51 PM   
porcelaine


Posts: 5020
Joined: 7/24/2006
Status: offline 		i'm single for a reason.
i'm not married for a reason.
there are moments when both are appealing.

shit happens. people fail and in some cases they fuck up royally. i have always wondered how it is possible for a person to carry that sort of thing around with them and be in a position of authority. but then again i should probably wonder more about the ones that serve them instead.

porcelaine


_____________________________

His will; my fate.

(in reply to lovingpet)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 7:25:56 PM   
lovingpet


Posts: 4270
Joined: 6/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
Well, in my view, divorce rates are so high because it's become so darn simple in a lot of ways.


Here will be an area where we disagree. I don't think divorce has become 'easier.' I think the laws about 'half' are why divorce is so prevalent. Before the big women's movement, women were stuck. They didn't work nearly as much as men and when they did get divorced, especially after a lengthy marriage, they were left in the cold with no job skills.

Now that women are as prevalent as men in the work force....now that they "don't need no man to support them" they realize they don't have to put up with much of what they used to feel they had to.

However, that's become one of those weird, double-edge swords. Now women have job skills, they can make their own money and thus don't have to rely on a man's money to support them. However, when they divorce, they still expect 'half.'

That's something I don't understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
No fault divorces, pre nups, and even pre arranged custody agreements make it a pretty safe bet. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Meh...I'll just get a divorce. Times are really tough and I'm tired of this shit... calls the divorce attorney. Well damn, this isn't what I signed up for...to divorce court we go.


Now I have to ask -- in what other area would you be expected to put up with something that you "Didn't sign up for?"

People take jobs that turn into something else....and so they quit because "This isn't what I signed up for." People enlist in the military and then get out because "This isn't what I signed up for." Why are instances like that ok to bail out of, but a life partner is not? If I meet someone and marry them, I expect to get what they showed me at the start of the relationship. If they become a manipulative, raving psycho gash....there's no way in hell I'm staying. Why shorten my life with that much stress if I don't have to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
It is a matter of making good decisions instead of covering your ass because you aren't sure you are. I don't want to be in that level of a relationship with someone that thinks I am capable of doing things like that. Sounds like a clear lack of trust to me AND it sounds like someone who doesn't know me or my character at all. Why on earth would we be getting hitched in the first place?


I've learned to think *everyone* is capable of something like that. History has shown me time and again that you *never* truly know someone. I have watched the sweet, giving personality of a girl turn literally on a dime. And this wonderful, good-hearted person I *thought* I knew became a raving, manipulative, abusive psycho gash.

I would be an absolute fool if I didn't protect myself in the future. Because history has shown me that a woman will tell me exactly what I want to here to get my guard down and then reveal that she was lying her ass off to me the whole time.

As to your final question in that paragraph -- Why on earth would we be getting hitched in the first place? I can only answer with "You're right.....we won't." As I said, history has shown me that it's just not smart, nor feasible to even consider it. And in order to even think that it might be a possibility, there will be a document signed where my significant other signs, in writing, that she is not after my money. If she can't meet me on that one term, then the relationship is either done or will simply continue without any of the legal ramifications that marriage brings.

You see the pre-nup as a lack of trust. I see it as a *proof* of trust. I am saying to the girl "You say that you love me. You say you want me and not my money. Prove your love to me. Sign the paper."

It's kinda like car shopping. The dealer will tell you anything you want to hear to sell you a car....but until you "get it in writing," it means nothing. If a girl really loves me, she'll "put it in writing." It's that simple.




I am sure there is some truth to your assertion about the women's movement putting women in a position to leave marriages they otherwise would have had to endure. I see your point on this, but it is all moot if someone is staunch about honoring their commitments. You asked when else to do people stay in something they "don't sign up for". It happens all the time. I have seen people stay in jobs that no longer remotely resemble the career path they thought they were getting on, but they stay anyway, maybe not so much for the employer, but for other reasons such as supporting a family or funding retirement since it is not far off. I have seen people's military lives go drastically not according to plan, but they stay out of duty to country rather than devotion to their branch or station. I have seen parents stick by kids with severe special needs, extreme behavioral problems, and more. I have seen adult children turn their lives upside down for an aging parent and see that through to the end even when things got to be far beyond what it was in the beginning. It is extremely hard though.

A question for you, why are you just presuming the worst? I don't care what past experiences are. This is a new person and does not deserve the burden of past baggage.

I think it is clear we simply do not agree. I am not into proving myself and I don't know that there will ever be proof enough to satisfy your old wounds. I find this outlook jaded. It is just my perception and I'm good with that. You have a need for proof and that is fine. It just means that we would never be compatible. Since we aren't lovey dovey and planning a weddin, it doesn't matter much. No hard feelings right?

lovingpet

(in reply to Loki45)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/4/2009 7:42:11 PM   
Loki45


Posts: 2100
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
A question for you, why are you just presuming the worst? I don't care what past experiences are. This is a new person and does not deserve the burden of past baggage.


It's not about presuming the worst. It's about being careful. It's about knowing. As I said before, you wouldn't just take a dealer's word for what he was telling you, would you? No. You'd get what he promised written into the purchase contract. Then you'd sign the contract, as would the dealer and you would know you were getting exactly what was promised. Should it be learned you're not getting what you were promised -- in writing -- then you'd have cause to take him to court to force the issue.

If I'm worh 4 million dollars going into a marriage (I'm not, but come along with me for a moment), why would I not want to protect that asset from someone whose intentions I am unsure of?

You said before it comes down to "if there was trust, the document wouldn't be needed." Well, that's true of car dealers too. If you could take their word as binding, you wouldn't need a contract when buying a car. But we all know how shady dealers can be, so you get them to put their promises in writing, or you don't buy the car.

A will is 'presuming the worst' but people get those. Insurance is as well. Do you 'plan' to be hurt? No. You plan what happens 'in case' you get hurt. I don't care why divorce stats are the way they are. The simple fact is that in this day and age, anyone planning to wed has the odds stacked against them regardless. Going into such a big decision without protection themselves would be foolish.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about a pre-nup that only covers the man's ass and leaves the chick out in the cold. Before signing, both parties have a responsibility to ensure their interests and concerns are addressed in the document.

I'm simply saying that, should I ever have marriage as an option, there will be a pre-nup. My money is my money. My house is my house and my car......well.....NOBODY drives my car but ME.

I often hear about people talking about proving their love to their significant other. A man has to buy an expensive ring to show his girl she's 'worth it.' A man has to show his love by always thinking of his girlfriend/wife. Why can a girl not show her love and prove it by signing a simple document?

You said asking for a pre-nup is a red flag. Well, I'd consider a red flag to be when an issue is made about it. It's just a document that protects two people who are about to enter into a legally binding arrangement. Why would you not want protection for that?

You sign a contract for almost every other aspect of your life. Buy a house - sign a contract. Take a job - sign a contract. Buy a car - sign a contract. This is just one more contract that is designed for protection.

I see nothing wrong with that.


_____________________________

"'Till the roof comes off, 'till the lights go out
'Till my legs give out, can't shut my mouth."

(in reply to lovingpet)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: I Trust You, But... - 9/5/2009 3:54:26 AM   
Loki45


Posts: 2100
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline 		The simplest way to put it is like this -- marriage is a legally binding contract between two people. A pre-nup is a legally binding contract between those same two people to protect them should the other contract fail.

If you cannot accept having the second legally binding contract, you shouldn't bother going on with the first.


_____________________________

"'Till the roof comes off, 'till the lights go out
'Till my legs give out, can't shut my mouth."

(in reply to Loki45)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: I Trust You, But... Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.110