Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: pre nups
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 199 (view)
 
pre nups
Posted: 1/1/2010 1:45:13 PM
Just stopping by to wish everyone a very happy and healthy New Year. May you find that which will give you the greatest joy for your life.
Take care all.

Claudia
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 36 (view)
 
Why Are So Many Young Pple Gettin Hitched & Then Divorced?
Posted: 12/29/2009 2:52:05 PM
I think the trend is that people are waiting longer to get married, overall. I think young people get married because they believe thats what people in love do - and young people fall in love. There's a whole culture built around the "happy ever after" scenario, and so the courtship and lead-up to marriage are exciting, but that actual "relationship" part, once the novelty wears off, isn't the same.

What we NEED is relationship education.

Agreed.

I will absolutely insist that they get a prenup and also live with their partner for a bit first.

No idea why, but it seems that people who live together first reduce their chances of staying together even after they get married.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Is this guy nuts??
Posted: 12/27/2009 10:06:37 PM

well whatever he is has twisted things that has been said between us and forgets things hes done and said and its happened several times. And then he turns around and tells me Im the one who is wrong and what really happened, to him happened a different way!!

Yeah, this'll make you literally nuts after a while, so best to get out sooner than later.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 181 (view)
 
pre nups
Posted: 12/27/2009 1:36:12 PM

Two people living together as co-hab, with or without an agreement in place...one couldn't argue their half the mortgage paid in regards to any interest "earned". If that were the case that would set off a wildfire of lawsuits where we'd see every renter across the planet suing their Landlords for interest in the same manner on appraised property because their monies went to pay that Landlord's mortgage.

A landlord-tenant agreement is NOT a spousal agreement. Courts recognize the difference between a spousal relationship and business relationship, even if you don't. Trying to compare the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

So how about you take your advice ... use your head - it's more than just a hat rack.


That wouldn't hold up in Court and you know it.

How would I know that? Do you offer any proof? Or is this just one of those declarations you expect people to accept because you said it as if you had no doubt? If you want to do some actual research and show me that 'constructive trust' related to payment of mortgage would never hold up in court, do so. Otherwise, I will stick to my research which tells me that CT is something people need to be aware of as it relates to common-law relationships.

Now, if you'd said something reasonable - perhaps along the lines that most people aren't going to bother, because it would be too expensive for too little return, then I might agree. But whether people would use that particular law, or even how often a court would support it is irrelevant to the point that constructive trust exists and it is a way in which a common-law spouse can invest in the a property, and get something out of it when they leave.

Knowledge is protection - so for anyone who is interested in CT and how it can affect common-law relationships, here are a couple of links:
http://www.law.uvic.ca/mdeckha/108b/documents/equityRTandCT.doc (2005 article)
http://www.common-law-separation-canada.com/resulting-trusts.htm
- and here's one example.
' Peter v Beblow - During a 12-year common law relationship, woman raised children from her previous relationship and from man’s previous relationship. After the first year, she worked outside the home, contributing financially, although never as much as man. She also worked in and around the house, improving it, and gardening. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the man had been unjustly enriched. It calculated the appropriate compensation on the basis of what the man would have had to pay a housekeeper, less the benefit the woman received from the accommodation. As the man did not have sufficient funds to pay this, woman was awarded a constructive trust interest in the entire matrimonial home effective on the date of separation. "
____________________________________

Your reality must be a fun one to live in. Send us a picture of the sky in your universe...it must be lovely.

Why yes, it is ... my universe, has a nice sense of balance to it - a little rain, some thunder and lightning sometimes, but mostly warm, sunny and happy. It's reality mixed with optimism - some people are arseholes, men and women both and neither gender is free from certain expectations/penalties as a result of the society we live in. People get hurt and ripped off by other people all the time, therefore its good to exercise caution without closing oneself off or looking at all people of a certain group with a jaundiced eye. I did have a choice to claim a universe like yours, and I very deliberately chose a different one, because people in universes like yours were nothing like I wanted to be or have around me.

Your universe, on the other hand, looks pretty darn miserable to me, filled as it is with fear and distrust of all those manipulative, greedy women (some of whom you'd like to fvck) who are out to trick you and take your money. Your universe is one where only the most negative light shines through, the one that distorts reality to bathe you in a pool of "I'm male, so I'm a victim" Anything that makes it through your dark clouds to suggest it's not all one-sided or simple is either completely ignored or ruthlessly smashed. Pretty bleak world you live in, as far as I can tell.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 175 (view)
 
pre nups
Posted: 12/27/2009 1:10:46 AM

That's the ONLY part of your spew worth commenting on. ..... And as for your opinion


That "spew" was a copy & paste from the Canadian Bar Association website - it's not my opinion at all; its an example of how "constructive trust" works. And, I'm not a lawyer, but I think whatever "interest" was allowed in the house was based on both the mortgage payments and the addition.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 172 (view)
 
pre nups
Posted: 12/26/2009 10:51:00 PM

So if she's living with me, paying half the mortgage, this is merely paying to have a roof over their head. She is not entitled to receive that money back as far as I can see. She wouldn't get monies back from a Landlord, so why should *I* give her any back?

"What does this notion of “constructive trust” mean in ordinary language?
Consider the following example: Say John and Mary lived together for ten years. Mary bought a house in her name the year they moved in together, but John couldn’t afford to contribute to the down payment. However, over the next ten years, John put his pay cheques into a joint account with Mary, and the mortgage payments were taken from that account. He also built and paid for a new addition to the house. Then the couple splits up, and Mary claims that John isn’t entitled to an interest in “her” property. In this case:
Mary was unjustly enriched,
John suffered a corresponding deprivation, and
There is no reason a judge can think of to let John suffer a deprivation.
John is therefore likely to be given an interest in Mary’s house.
The bottom line is this: even if property isn’t in your name, you may have a claim to some part of that property.
Note too that if you worked in your partner’s business, or you stayed home to look after the children while your partner worked and used the money he or she earned to buy property or acquire investments, you may be entitled to a share in that business, property or investments. "
http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/148.aspx
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 42 (view)
 
What makes us do this?
Posted: 12/26/2009 9:44:26 PM

Have any of you purposely sabotaged a relationship and if so why?

Nope, never have but I have experienced it. I think that a person who does that isn't necessarily doing it on purpose; they may start the relationship with high hopes and really believing that this can work, then they have a change of feeling and - rather than try to work it out - they become embarrassed/scared and feel they just have to disappear. One would hope they'd figure this pattern out and do something about it, but who knows? Some people lack the ability to be even slightly insightful about themselves.

And then there are those who do it deliberately, of course, because they're addicted to the chase, the romance or something - but I believe they're in the minority.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 163 (view)
 
pre nups
Posted: 12/25/2009 8:43:56 AM

so if she made no contribution to downpayment and just half the mortgage for 3 years...she'd MAYBE get an equivalent to her 3 years payment back. But she'd be looking at paying more for Lawyers than she'd be gaining in the end after legal fees.

So you'd feel no moral obligation to return even her basic investment, let alone her earned share of the increased value of the home? So much for women being the greedy, unethical gender.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 159 (view)
 
pre nups
Posted: 12/24/2009 11:34:42 PM

House was bought AFTER the union? Split. Cars were bought AFTER the union? Split.
So it's not so cut and dry as you make it out to be. As long as these things were purchased/procured AFTER the union, then yes they will be split accordingly.

Nope, not unless both names are on the title. In marriage, that is assumed even if only one name is on the title.

Prenups and co-hab agreements...best insurance ever.

Pre-nups, yes, with legal advice. Co-hab agreements -- maybe, again with legal advice.
"Cohabitation agreements are usually entered into when:
the relationship is expected to be a long one;
one or both parties have a substantial amount of assets going into the relationship;
one of the parties has significantly more income than the other;
the couple anticipate living in a home owned by one of the parties;
one or both parties expect to acquire substantial assets during the relationship from, for example, an inheritance, a settlement, a court award, or a gift;
one or both parties has significant debts going into the relationship;
the parties intend on having children or one or both parties is bringing a child into the relationship; or,
the parties expect that the relationship will be "traditional," with one party working out of the home and supporting the other such that spousal support might become an issue if the relationship ends.

Cohabitation agreements are generally not appropriate when:
the couple are young;
the point of the agreement is to avoid sharing assets that are brought into or acquired during the relationship
neither party has significant assets or income going into the relationship;
neither party is bringing any children into the relationship; or,
both parties are working out of the home and expect to continue working out of the home."
http://www.bcfamilylawresource.com/07/0702body.htm
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 153 (view)
 
pre nups
Posted: 12/24/2009 1:14:16 PM

I heard And read that the average life of a marriage is now 13 years and the divorce rate is now 70%.

Where did you read and hear this?

I'm all for pre-nups, and co-habitation agreements as well. Heck, the more we can get down in writing, the safer we all are when the person of the first part decides they hate and must get even with the person of the second part.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 19 (view)
 
The Best Friend Trap
Posted: 12/22/2009 5:23:45 PM
I know of a woman who was "best friends" with someone for 8 or 9 years before they became romantically involved; they've been together about 3 years now, and married for two of those. I'd say that's a rare occurance though. Guess it depends on how long you're willing to wait to see if anything changes for him.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 24 (view)
 
I love him but he always lies to me>_<
Posted: 12/20/2009 12:11:10 PM

He promised me that he will not tell me a lie again.

Yeah, but he lies all the time, right?
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 407 (view)
 
Taking his name....?
Posted: 12/20/2009 11:37:37 AM
^^^ yeah, but you put HIS before HER, which clearly shows your bias! To be truly gender-neutral, it should have been HER before HIS, since E comes before I.


 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Where do we go from here?
Posted: 12/18/2009 9:13:19 AM

I have talked to him a million times about what I need from him and still I do not get it

And he's also not getting, from you, someone who accepts HIM for who HE is and what HE needs. You are both unhappy.

I'd suggest you both consider these options:
Marriage counselling,
An open marriage, so you can get your sexual desires met without having to "cheat" on him.
Separation/divorce

If either of you two cannot accept the first two options, then the third one is the most honest option. Cheating is not right; it's disprespectful to him, demeans the relationship you've had with him for 11 years, and it demonstrates your lack of character. You do not have the right to keep the comfort and safety of your marriage, while you chip away at it's foundation.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Role reversal
Posted: 12/17/2009 2:29:45 PM

Househusbands can work in some cases. But in the majority of cases, women cannot and do not respect a man who does not earn money, even if the man is staying at home and taking care of the young kids (doing the same work that housewives do).

The likely explanation is because women as a whole tend to be too superficial or materialistic (which means they should be blamed), or because of social conditioning / biological ingraining (which means they are not at fault). Not saying this is the correct explanation, but a likely one.

Proof:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-467390/Househusband-backlash-high-flying-wives-ditch-men-em-em-wanted-stay-home.html#StartComments

Interesting article, but a bit over the top to call it "proof". I would be interested in information from the US and Canada, to see if there is a similar situation.

Nowhere in that article does it suggest that women are to blame for due to being 'shallow and materialistic'; sounds more like an interpretation by someone who prefers to believe "women are to blame" whenever they can. It does suggest that the women in these marriages still held a deep-seated belief that men are the "protectors and breadwinners" and that was most likely at the core of their change of attitudes. By ending the marriage, these women were actually lowering their standard of living as well - hardly seems like the actions of a "shallow and materialistic" person.

What really bothers me more than one spouse not appreciating what the other spouse is contributing in unpaid work, is that the men in these stories were then denied custody of the kids they'd spent the most time raising!

Also, it was interesting how the wives seemed take the housework/childcare their husbands did for granted, not valuing it, and they also seemed to fall into the habit of coming home and avoid interaction with their husbands. This is something that many stay-at-home wives would complain about, too. Funny where the similarities in men and women show up!
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Role reversal
Posted: 12/17/2009 11:44:07 AM
I'd love to have a house-husband; unfortunately, I can't afford one.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 36 (view)
 
Wearing different clothes in a relationship
Posted: 12/17/2009 8:29:19 AM
It seems to me that if you love someone, allowing them to be comfortable around the house is a loving thing to do. If you think it's your spouse's obligation to make sure you are always visually pleased, no matter their comfort level, then I have to wonder how much you really 'love' that person.

This doesn't translate into I think it's ok to be a slob 24/7, either. And yah, jogging suits can be sexy, and way easier access than jeans. In my experience, anyway.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 88 (view)
 
witholding sex
Posted: 12/16/2009 12:30:26 PM

When you're married, I feel there is no good reason to withhold sex, except for health issues of course.... What do you all think?

When I was married, I never withheld sex - I guess I wanted it more than he did.

At the same time, he saw no reason to help me with the kids (left him to babysit for 6 hours, once, and he couldn't even be bothered to change his daughter's diaper); no reason to have a shower before coming to bed, no reason to help with housework, no reason to engage in any foreplay. I tried to talk to him about this stuff, but nothing changed. He did, however, find other women to fool around with. So yeah, under those circumstances I can understand why a woman might be disinclined to have sex with her husband, even if she wasn't sick.

Lack of interest in sex doesn't happen in a vacuum; the sexual partner is part of the equation too.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 34 (view)
 
what does it mean to be generous
Posted: 12/16/2009 11:49:49 AM

I have read a lot of post where woman are looking for a man that is generous. What does that mean? Are they looking for someone that is willing to spend a lot of money on them?

I don't have that on my profile, and I don't know what the people who do have that might mean.

I have to say that I appreciate a man who is generous - with his time, attention, affection. And generous with money, too. I don't mean in buying me stuff, either, but that he's willing to share what he's got without expecting anything in return. Maybe he'll buy me a sandwhich when he knows I've been too busy to eat; maybe he overtips the servers because he recognizes that it's a low-paying gig. Maybe he helps out friends who are less fortunate than he, and gives a few bucks to the bum on the street.

Yeah, I like a guy who's generous too.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Cheating or not cheating?
Posted: 12/15/2009 12:54:38 PM

She said that she caved-in under pressure from her family/friends to find someone closer and that the fact that we weren’t married meant that it wouldn't be cheating if she went out with other men even if I didn't know.

She's splitting hairs, who knows why? Maybe she feels guilty, maybe she'd like to keep you but is also discouraged by the distance/issues keeping you apart. Whatever her reasons, she's doing some real mental gymnastics to keep you hanging in while she looks for someone new.

It is only considered "Cheating" if you’re married? Is this someone that can be trusted in the future?

No, and I'd be hesitant about trusting someone like that in the future. But ultimately, only you can decide if she's trustworthy now or in the future.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Why can';t I post more than twice
Posted: 12/14/2009 1:08:25 PM
TTR, you're right .. I read the first link you suggested (even before I asked the original question), but missed the second. I've read it now, though.

Thanks to both you and Late for answering my questions.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Why can';t I post more than twice
Posted: 12/14/2009 11:55:39 AM

This may apply to a more chat oriented site, this site has as its goal: Quality forums, and one of the aspects of this is archival.

I can certainly understand that archival and long-running threads would be ideal for more technical or academic sites. Limiting social archives also makes sense to me.

Still, POF is a "social" site by design, rather than a technical or academic one, so the tendency of people to "chat" is natural, even on forums - so I don't quite see the logic of this. Since every topic related to dating/relationships/gender differences must have been covered by now, why have forums at all? Why not convert everything to "read-only"; people can browse for answers to their questions.


This is very useful for "junk threads",

While I agree the 5-post limit is a good idea for some of the threads, if quality forums are the goal, why keep "junk threads" at all, let alone for years?
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Marriage: does it mean anything anymore?
Posted: 12/14/2009 11:30:12 AM

The most interesting historical statistic is that today women are nearly twice as likely to divorce than men which begs the question; if divorce equals lack of commitment or people not knowing how to work at a relationship than is there a gender that is more committed than the other? Let’s let history decide…

Except that the person filing for divorce isn't necessarily the one who "ended" it. I was the one who "ended" our marriage; he was the one who filed for divorce. The lack of commitment was both of us: he was not faithful, and I was too immature to be married in the first place. Many people file divorce because of unfaithfulness or abuse, either substance or physical, of their partner.


historical divorce rates show a steady increase in divorce over time.

Actually, the rate of divorce peaked in the 80s; ever since, there has been a downward trend. This is partly applicable to the fact that marriage rates are down as well. First marriages are the most likely to last 30 years (a little over 70%), and 2nd and 3rd marriages have a greater failure rate. The overall divorce rate is (from the most recent stats I saw) slightly under 50%.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Why can';t I post more than twice
Posted: 12/14/2009 11:08:52 AM
Does this 5-post limit apply to all forums or just certain ones? The message I got didn't specify 5 posts, though; only that I've reached the limit. I had to go back and count them in history to figure out what the limit was.

Probably a good idea though - a person should be able to say all they need to on the topic in 5 posts.

Now if we could just convince management to delete threads that are years old, POF forum life would be great.

 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Marriage: does it mean anything anymore?
Posted: 12/14/2009 9:01:14 AM

Does marriage MEAN anything anymore, or is it just a word? What happened to taking those vows seriously? Are wee that disposable society that vows and promises mean anything anymore?

People have cheated throughout history; it's some kind of myth that there was a time in the past when the vows were taken more "seriously". "These days" are no different then yesterdays; the only difference is that people are more likely to split due to infidelity than they used to be. If anything is more disposable nowadays, it's the marriage itself, not the people.

Not to mention, some recent stat I saw claimed that 80% of people do not cheat. Of course, other stats put it at about 60% for men and women both.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 21 (view)
 
A Problem?
Posted: 12/14/2009 8:44:00 AM

she has friends who get her to smoke weed alot since i've met her.

This is wrong; the friends don't "get her" to do anything - she does it herself.

I've been trying to figure out how to tell her about how her smoking weed is really turning me off from being with her.

This is tough, I agree. I think you do need to tell her - if she becomes defensive and accusatory, then I think you will have to let her go. If she's able to understand and you two can work it out, great. I don't think you need to go into detail about all the things you've done in the past related to drug use, especially if the drugs involved weren't pot. Many people do not consider pot anything like harder drugs or even alchohol, and while they may understand your feelings about pot use, they may think comparing it to harder drugs is overkill.

I've ended relationships due to pot smoking, and it's disappointing, but I have learned now to not even start with someone who smokes pot because it just does not work for me.

Good luck.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 394 (view)
 
What's the reward for Chivalry?
Posted: 12/13/2009 9:13:54 AM

It's also ridiculous to claim that expecting chivalry is not about having a sense of entitlement.

I haven't seen anyone say they EXPECT this behavior; I've seen several say they APPRECIATE it when it happens. So, methinks it's ridiculous to argue against something that doesn't even appear to be happening.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 393 (view)
 
What's the reward for Chivalry?
Posted: 12/13/2009 9:11:58 AM

The idea of chivalry extends well beyond the door being opened or who walks on what side of the road.

Yes, it does ...

In a world of equality, gender should not be a determining factor for ether of those examples, but for some it is.

In the real world, gender is a determining factor in a lot of things: for instance (and from another thread) who, traditionally, takes the man's name when a couple gets married? Who wears the high heels? Who wears the pants? How many men vs women enjoy sports? Gender DOES make a difference in the things we choose to do, the way we experience life, and in the way we're treated. If a man wants to recognize my femaleness and his maleness by walking on the outside of the street, I'm going to let him and appreciate what he's trying to demonstrate to me. I'm not going to get on my equality high horse and blast him for it; that would be just petty and stupid. If he doesn't walk on the outside, no big deal - I likely won't even notice.

Women use this to their advantage all the time. Look at how difficult it is for a father to win during a custody fight. The women turns on the water works and it does not matter if she is not the best parent to look after the kids because for some chivalry dictates that women are initialed to certain things

In the court system and society in general, there is a perception that women are less violent/criminally inclined than are men, and when a woman is charged with a serious crime she is more likely to get off or get a lighter sentence than a man would for the same crime. That is a holdover from the days of chivalry.

Child custody is different. Historically, children were considered to be property of the man, and therefore he was the one who was entitled to custody:

In Roman, and later in English common law, children were viewed as the property of the father, who had a legal obligation to protect, support and educate his children. Fathers had the right as well to sell their children, and to enter them into enforced labor. In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of circumstances. Several major historical trends converged to weaken this paternal presumption in the late 1800's, including society's increasing focus on children's welfare, and the effects of the industrial revolution. As fathers increasingly sought work beyond the farm or village, mothers remained at home as primary caretakers. The resultant division of family responsibilities into wage earner and child nurturer influenced subsequent custody decisions. The paternal preference was gradually replaced by a maternal preference, based on the "tender years" presumption. The tender years doctrine (intended to apply to children under age 6) was originally invoked to determine temporary custody arrangements in English law, giving mothers custody of infants only until they were ready to be returned to the father. But by the 1920's, the maternal preference for custody in English and American law, regardless of the child's age, became as firmly fixed as the earlier paternal preference, and was encoded in statute in all 48 states. The assumption that mothers were better suited to nurture and raise children received an intellectual underpinning in the 1930's from Freudian psychoanalytic theory, which focused exclusively on the mother-child relationship, and ignored the role of the father in the child's development. The resulting idealization of motherhood was often reflected in custody decision-making, as in this 1938 Missouri judicial opinion: "There is but a twilight zone between a mother's love and the atmosphere of heaven."
The maternal presumption for custody remained firm for many decades in the United States, challenged only after the divorce rate began its dramatic rise in the 1960's. Spurred on by fathers' claims of sex discrimination in custody decisions, constitutional concerns for equal protection, the feminist movement, and the entry of large numbers of women into the workforce, most states had substituted the standard of the "best interests of the child" for the tender years presumption by the mid 1970's. For the first time in history, custody decision-making was to be rooted in a consideration of the child's needs and interests, rather than based simply on the gender of the parent.

[http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Child%20Custody%20in%20the%20USA%20(Page%201%20of%205).htm]

So no, a maternal preference by the system for child custody hasn't much to do with chivalry. Just the opposite, in fact - the further we've gotten from chivalry, the less that code has influenced who gets the kids.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 371 (view)
 
What's the reward for Chivalry?
Posted: 12/12/2009 11:35:56 PM
Ok, I'm convinced! And, to prove that I very much support men/women being treated exactly the same regardless of gender, I'm going to start a campaign to remove high heels from store shelves! No longer shall women acknowledge the difference in the genders by wearing shoes that emphasize their feminity for the benefit of men! Skirts too, and stockings (though they do seem to have gone out of fashion of late; see a lot of bare legs these days!); the best way to eliminate anyone being treated differently according to gender is to eliminate differences in clothing. Probably wouldn't be easy to get guys into skirts and heels, so we'll just have to take women out of them. Bikinis & two-piece bathing suits - hmmm .. can't eliminate the tops of them and put everyone into speedos, that would be counterproductice: sorry, peeps, it's one-piece for everybody! The bathings suits of the 20s (I think it was the 20s?) seem most appropriate. Yes, unisex clothing - it'll mean 95% of the stores in malls will close, but I'm sure we can make the sacrifice to support true gender equality! Oh yeah, haircuts - all the same. No more $12 haircuts for men, $35 haircuts for women.

Ok, then we need to get more men into the kitchen: when I invite couples over for dinner, there'll be no more men sitting in the living room chatting and having a drink, whilst the women cook/serve/clean up - the men can get their a$$es into the kitchen as well. And, for people who couple up and end up with kids - nobody gets to stay at home full time. Either the kids go to daycare while both parents work, or each parent works half-time and devotes the other half of their time to their progeny. Speaking of babies, boys will be vasectomized at age 13, after having a supply of sperm collected. When they feel an urge to procreate and after having signed several pieces of paper acknowledging their intent and desire to have a child, and their promise to contribute to it's raising (financially as well as investing in the father-child bond) they'll be permitted to become proud papas. Women will also have to sign the same papers; no more fighting over child support or choosing baby making as a career. Child custody in the case of a split will automatically be 50/50; disputes will be settled by a judge who'll be given all the evidence, but will not know which parent is the father and which the mother. Any parent who plays games with access will automatically lose custody.

Sorry ladies, but military service is not just for men anymore - everybody has to play, and none of this stay safe behind enemy lines stuff either, and yah, you're gonna have to work on a garbage truck (one of the riskiest jobs there is, I hear). On the plus side, professional sports are gonna get you mega bucks too, even ones like hockey, football and racing! Think of the fame/fortune, not to mention the opportunities to mess around with all the groupies! Men - you will be free to pursue your secret desire to become part of the caregiver segment of society: nurses, teachers, administrative assistants - even get a serving job at Hooters! Oh yeah, that reminds me ... a law will be passed requiring that servers provide separate cheques; any guest caught trying to pay for someone of the other gender will be summarily executed. Paying for friends of the same gender is permitted.

We accomplish all this, just think how quiet POF forums would become!
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 346 (view)
 
What's the reward for Chivalry?
Posted: 12/12/2009 3:45:17 PM

Chivalry: Rules and standards for how men treat women, with no mention of how women treat men.

Chivalry isn't rules and standards for how men treat women, it's how men behave as men of honor; this includes certain behaviors directed toward women - merely because they ARE women.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 342 (view)
 
What's the reward for Chivalry?
Posted: 12/12/2009 2:29:46 PM
I have no idea what the reward for chivalry would be for any particular man, or even men in general, other than how they feel about themselves as well as women in general.

There's a code associated with chivalry - honor, loyalty, honesty, bravery, humility, respect for others (except enemies, of course). If a man believes chivalric behavior is important because of the concept of honor, loyalty, honesty etc., then it's going to apply to everyone, not just the woman he's dating. He may demonstrate them differently when dealing with women vs dealing with men, but if they are a part of his personal code then a "reward" from a woman (or a man) is pretty irrelevant. In my opinion.

I don't expect/insist on these things with a man; other things are probably going to sway me for or against him more than whether he holds my chair or not. Still, all other things being equal, the man who believes those small gestures are appropriate and important is likely going to get a little extra effort from me - whatever is appropriate for that relationship and how long it's been established: could be a second date, a neck or shoulder massage, a card or small gift, a favorite food, home-cooked, a bj that that he'll remember for a while. Whether these extra efforts are initiated by him holding my coat on the first date or me paying for the first coffee doesn't really matter, imo: in the end, we're both happier for the time we've spent together. That seems like a pretty good reward to me.

(Btw, I don't like pearl necklaces with bjs: got better places for those 'pearls')
________________________________
This

chivalry is not totally relevant today in its old form; it's manners, graciousness and good treatment, and it is not gender based; it's each person being someone who goes the extra mile. Both people to both people.

and this:

Chivalry is about respect. Strip otu everything else... and it is showing you value a person enough either way to do a small act of kindness to make their day a little brighter.

Agreed.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 248 (view)
 
Taking his name....?
Posted: 12/12/2009 10:21:32 AM

Well, I can only speak for myself, but personally I hold marriage in high regard. I don't take it lightly.
I may be old fashioned, but I see it as a statement that here are two people going through this time here together. They have each other's back. Each is the other's most important person in the world. It is a unity in the purest form of the word. It's a thing of beauty. Traditionally, a large part of that symbol of unity has been sharing the same name.
That symbol of unity is marriage. It's a statement to each other, and, yes, to a lesser degree, it's also a statement to the world.
If you hold that institution in high regard, then you're unlikely to be interested in altering it substantially.
It's a huge step, but there is that custom there for us to symbolise the union of two people that love each other enough to do it.
For me, if I'm going to do it, I don't want a "watered down" version of it. You protect institutions that you regard highly. That protection extends to not wishing it to be degraded by picking and choosing the parts that suit you. Maybe I'm too "black and white", but as it holds little actual value in "external" terms, then if it turns grey, I'll just forego it altogether thanks.

I want to thank you for this post. It's refreshing to read a post where one's honest and positive feelings are expressed and doesn't seek to accuse or blame somebody else, prove anyone else wrong, or play tit-for-tat (and sure, I've been guilty of that, doesn't mean I like it in any better in me than anyone else). Anyway, this post for me was kinda like a shining light in the murk of the ongoing POF gender war.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Soooo 4 Dates for POF....
Posted: 12/12/2009 9:30:19 AM

It's because
4 women got dates.
Better than sitting home alone.

Hah! Going on a date with someone I'm not compatible with is NOT better than sitting at home alone. But then, I'm not 20-something either.

OP, lots of people lie on here, it's true. But there are lots of honest ones. In 3 years of dating, I only recall a handful of dishonest people, and I went on a lot more than a handful of dates.

I also disagree with "don't be in a hurry to meet". Not meeting only gives the liars time to add to their lies, and suck you in emotionally - and you aren't going to find out till you meet them. Better to meet sooner, the disappointment is less. Could also suggest or insist on webcam before making plans to meet.

What is Dave and Busters?
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 116 (view)
 
Why are some guys so afraid?
Posted: 12/11/2009 9:36:21 AM

But you know, even then it's difficult for men - after all, they have only the basic emotions (black, brown, blue, orange, etc), which they're cool with (or so I heard through the grapevine) and couldn't see all the emotions (peach, taupe, mauve, violet etc). I have by virtue of being a woman.

On rereading that, I see that it comes across differently than I intended - my bad.

What I was thinking is that guys are taught - more so than women - to suppress their more vulnerable side and, as has been stated elsewhere, seem to be much more in touch with their basic emotions. When presented with a woman's more nuanced emotions, they seem to feel at a loss and, in some cases, resentful and guilty even if the woman clearly states that her emotions have nothing to do with him. That's been my experience, sometimes.

FWIW, I feel awkward when faced with a person crying, male or female. My urge is to comfort them; I am often not sure how to do that without embarrassing them even more and I suspect I have come across as cold and unfeeling at times. I've never ended a relationship with a man because he cried, but I have avoided women who seem to me to be too emotional, too often.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Realistic?
Posted: 12/11/2009 8:56:51 AM

Relationships aren't 50/50, the IDEA is you give 100%, 100% of the time, if you have two partners committed to giving 100% you never need to worry about giving and taking, just give, and be with someone that gives.

I entirely agree with this.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 115 (view)
 
Why are some guys so afraid?
Posted: 12/11/2009 7:36:43 AM

When a man bears his soul and then hears, "You think you got it bad? Well, let me tell you what..." It'll shut him up quicker than a NO. 4 leghold trap.

Baring my soul (with or without tears) while simultaneously telling the person "Its YOUR fault" never worked for me to garner support or sympathy; why would a guy think it would work for him? I had to learn to express my feelings without blaming him if I hoped to get any kind of positive response. But you know, even then it's difficult for men - after all, they have only the basic emotions (black, brown, blue, orange, etc), which they're cool with (or so I heard through the grapevine) and couldn't see all the emotions (peach, taupe, mauve, violet etc). I have by virtue of being a woman.

In an optimum senario, there is a reciprocal desire for understanding, or (as i harp on) empathy.

Agreed. And I think it starts with avoiding the words "It's YOUR fault", whether "your" is an individual or a gender.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 106 (view)
 
Why are some guys so afraid?
Posted: 12/10/2009 10:30:39 PM

Your arm could be broken and dangling at your side by just one thin strip of flesh...you cry, you're done.

Ok, so it wasn't quite hanging by a strip of flesh, but it was obviously broken - U shaped between the elbow and wrist. I was 9 years old, it hurt, I cried. The female neighbor who saw me said "Oh, don't be such a baby"; my mother, when I screamed as she YANKED off my jacket said "Oh stop it!" She did let me stay home from school for the afternoon, but after a couple of hours of NOT moving, my arm didn't hurt so much and I asked for something to eat. "Oh, you must be feeling better if you're hungry". Eventually, when it became apparent that it wasn't going to fix itself, she took me to the hospital. Ninety minute drive over gravel road; no whimpering allowed, dammit!

When I was 11, I was knocked off a horse; couldn't stand up straight I was in so much pain, but nonetheless I had to do my chores and NO COMPLAINING; it didn't hurt THAT bad! That hip still bothers me. I got admiration and compliments for ruthlessly (and emotionlessly) killing kittens, first by drowning and then, for the two who survived that, by throwing them against the barn wall. Crying elicited nothing but scorn and impatience in my family, whether you were male or female. Especially EMOTIONAL crying; that was particularly unacceptable. And, as WIP pointed out - anger, for the GIRLS wasn't allowed either. But it was ok for the boys.


Society...and the women who promote the hiding...can all go straight to Hell.

But we'll give a pass to all the MEN who promote this, shall we? All the Daddies who call their sons nasty names if they cry, who knock them about "playfully", and laugh at them if they wince or show sign of pain? The men who, if their boy doesn't play with the "right" toys, or the "right" game start worrying about whether or not they're "fags", and work even harder to "toughen" them up, emotionally and physically? The men who discourage mothers from comforting or accepting their son's tears, because they're so worried about a "mama's boy" coming from HIS loins?

I agree with you, BDJ, that it is a societal expectation that men don't cry, and that crying, for women, is more socially acceptable. But MEN are one half of that society, and singling out WOMEN on this is particularly moronic. Sometimes you guys just gotta take responsibility for what you do to yourselves, instead of dumping it all on women.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Your Christmas Lights...
Posted: 12/10/2009 3:09:39 PM
The more I hear of what vanoc would "like" everyone to do - and it usually involves me being inconvienced in some way, especially financially - the less I am inclined to support the Olympics. Their world may revolve around the Olympics, but mine does not.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Being Used ? A little Confused
Posted: 12/10/2009 2:15:24 PM

Wrong. Sex should never be used as a "negotiating tactic", a "reward," or a "test."

I agree; perhaps I wasn't clear. Its not that that the sex should be used as a negotiating tactic, reward or test, but that OP appears to want more than he does in terms of relationship status, he knows this and so he uses that to talk her back into bed. If she's fine with FW(occasional)B, fine - then its all good. If he's manipulating her through lies and half-truths, its in her best interests to keep it purely platonic - because that is what they've agreed on, numerous times.

If someone is not into you, they are not into you. Sex or the absence of it doesn't change that.

I agree; its certainly been my experience.

If the other person is pressuring you, then drop them fast

Yup, and that is more where my remarks are coming from: he is not pressuring her, merely using what he knows about her to push certain buttons. Thats my take on it, anyway.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 202 (view)
 
Taking his name....?
Posted: 12/10/2009 1:56:42 PM

Honestly if any woman on POF can find, meet, connect with, have great sex with; a man who isn't deranged, NOT on meds, alcoholic, still married, living in his X's basement, has a nice package

I found, met, connected with, have great sex with a man who isn't deranged, not on meds, doesn't drink, is single, does not live with his parents ... when I tell him what some of the guys on these forums say, he looks at me and says "they obviously have issues; why do you bother?" and shakes his head.

and that man wants to marry the woman.

Not sure I'm the marrying type. Not sure he is. Not sure we're not. Time will tell.

All I can say is she better say yes and agree if he wants her to change her name to his.

Yeah, its not like I'm particularly attached to the name I currently carry around with me. I like the idea that he and I pick a brand new name. :) Not likely we'd be having kids, so continuing the 'family' name would be pretty irrelevant.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Being Used ? A little Confused
Posted: 12/10/2009 1:47:37 PM
Looks like a pattern to me: he hints or implies that you might be special - sex happens. He thinks you begin expecting too much, he reminds you "no relationship". Things return to platonic for while, till he hints that you might be "special" ... and voila - bed beckons.

I think YOU should make the "no sex" rule stick even when he implies you might be special. I bet after a couple of times of that not working, he'd disappear completely.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 221 (view)
 
Why do Strong, Independant, and Outspoken MEN scare the hell out of the modern-day woman?
Posted: 12/10/2009 1:11:58 PM
^^^ such an attitude is returned in spades by a few men on here. Have to just ignore those whose comments are driven by bitterness, anger, etc. There are still lots of decent ones, male and female both. At least, that's been my experience. But I'm optimistic like that.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 191 (view)
 
Taking his name....?
Posted: 12/10/2009 1:08:06 PM

Felt like living with a cantankerous male.

I can SO relate to that!

Never again.

Well, I'm not quite ready to give up yet. Kind of ambivalent about cohabitation, with or without marriage and assorted name changes, but not going to give up on guys just yet. Too many great ones out there, still. I might even have one of them!
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 30 (view)
 
What Does She Really Want?
Posted: 12/10/2009 12:44:11 PM

It is quite a selfish thing to do, but I suppose the way around it would be to show her as much love as you can. If you need her in your life, show her, tell her. And then sit her down and explain that you know how she feels, but that it offends you and upsets you when she threatens to break up all the time.

Not saying this is true of you, cause I know nothing about you or your ex, but for some people there would simply be no way of ever reassuring them enough. The more reassurance they got, the more they'd want - and the "We're through" approach to conflict resolution would still be in use.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 175 (view)
 
Taking his name....?
Posted: 12/10/2009 12:23:36 PM

I dunno pro, if you aren't married in 3 years your b/f will be the one who can't commit, not you, at least in the views of others. Women who date and don't get married are independant, men who do that are cads.

I’d have to agree that may well be the attitude among many, given recent forums especially. I have also heard women being described as being afraid of commitment, so not everyone sees this as divided on gender grounds alone.

On a personal level, if he and I differed on the question of marriage, that would be between us. Anyone who thought they could call him “needy and clingy” for wanting marriage when I did not or “a commitment-phobe cad” for not wanting marriage when I did – well, that would not sit well with me and I’d tell them so. Unless he left me standing at the altar; that would be annoying and character assassination would be much more appropriate.

Gender stereotypes and expectations from a different time are a cross we all have to bear: if the house isn’t clean/meals aren’t prepared/children aren’t cared for, who is the lazy one who doesn’t care about her family? Doesn’t really matter who actually does those things, it’s generally seen as the woman’s responsibility. I think (hope?) that eventually all these kinds of stereotypes will be a choice and not an expectation, whether the expectation comes from within oneself or from society in general.

I've always tried to avoid stereotyping either men or women, and since being on these forums I have tried to be even more aware of where/how they affect men, and try to examine my behavior to ensure it's not supporting outmoded behavior that some might find offensive or hurtful (yeah, PC me!). Having lived with the societal expectations inherent in being female for 50 or so years, it's easier to identify those so sometimes it can be a challenge to see the men's side as clearly. I can but try, and have no doubt that, all unwittingly, I've supported stereotpyes for both men and women at least a few times throughout my life.

It's not about tit for tat, it's just to use a hypothetical to illustrate how strange it is to be all for the customary parts of marriage until something isn't up to whatever that particular woman wants.

It’s equally strange to me that I’m on a forum in which men are supporting an outmoded tradition that a woman wants, rather than then trying to tear it down.

A woman that doesn't take a name? She's independant.

And a man who is ok with that is confident, and who sees himself and his partner as fully autonomous adults; it shows respect. On the other hand, if he wants her to have his last name, it’s romantic and chivalrous and also shows respect, in a different way. In my mind, the man wins both ways.

The only tradition i think men have going for them is a bachelor party and the wedding night/honeymoon.

From some of the bachelor party stories I’ve heard, I wonder why men aren’t clamoring to eliminate that tradition!
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 163 (view)
 
Taking his name....?
Posted: 12/10/2009 11:16:59 AM

You miss the point.

Sorry if I did.


Those traditions can be abolished if BOTH people are a party to it. Keeping the name is unilateral. The COUPLE can choose the traditions in the marriage, not the WOMAN.

I would guess that if a tradition is being tossed (or even kept), it's because someone feels more strongly about whatever that tradition is than the other, so they compromise, right? Using the argument that tradition "X" should be kept because all the other traditions are being kept seems a rather weak argument, to me, especially if we both felt strongly about that tradition "X".

If I were in the situation described by the OP, I'd respond more favorably to the argument that expresses his feelings - for instance, being the "head", the "protecter & provider" of a family, even if it were in feeling more so than in practice. Even the "I'm the last of my family and want to keep the name" reason would inspire me to compromise or give up my name much more readily than "We've kept all the other traditions, we'll keep this one too." If the reason for keeping my name was due to professional reasons, I might offer, for instance, to use the married name in day to day life, but keep my legal documents in my name. For me, I'd want to know his personal reasons why this is important to him as opposed to a blind following of tradition, even if every other aspect of the wedding/marriage was 'traditional'. That's the only way I could choose to give up my personal preferences in deference to his.



How many women have you met that have been pressured by family, friends or coworkers to propose to their b/f?.

Women may not be pressured to do the 'proposing', but the pressure is there and comes from both men and women. I'd known my current guy 6 weeks, and completed a move I'd been planning before I'd met him; you wouldn't believe how many people asked (male and female) - "are you two moving in together?". Perhaps not "pressure" in the sense you are talking about, but people (not just women) assume relationships are headed towards something other than dating (or living together) forever. Your perception that its mostly just women who assume this isn't accurate.


If I support you kicking the tradition of taking my name out, YOU should support me in kicking the tradition of marriage out.

I'd support you in doing what's right for you . I'd not support you in doing things based on tit-for-tat, or bitterness as a result of previous relationship experience.

 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 16 (view)
 
What Does She Really Want?
Posted: 12/10/2009 10:33:48 AM

My question for you fine people is if you've had any experience dealing with this type of issue before in your relationships? How did you handle it?

I did this when I was younger; it was because I was afraid that he would dump me, because of being angry, and so I'd "jump the gun" so to speak, and dump him first. I had to recognize my motives, and I had to realize how much damage and hurt I was causing. Eventually, I was able to stop using this as a tactic, but it took work - self-awareness is more difficult when one is caught up in emotions.


I've tried talking to her about the whole issue and she just gets defensive and angry, and doesn't want to talk about it.

That is unfortunate; I certainly have my faults but unwillingness to listen and change if need be isn't one of them. If she's not willing to do the work, I don't see that there is much that you can do to fix it. Much as it may hurt, maybe you need to tell her that next time she "dumps" you during an argument, that WILL be it. And mean it. It'll be the end of the relationship, but at least she'll know that her actions and words have consequences - that she can't just say "sorry" and get away with it.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 158 (view)
 
Taking his name....?
Posted: 12/10/2009 10:23:47 AM

but i think you can agree that on a worldwide level, the interest in marriage, at least in perception is far higher for the female gender than for the male, can we agree there at least?

Nah, worldwide I think it's the parents who are the most interested in marriage.

Funny thing is that I've seen all kinds of surveys/reports/stats that demonstrate that more men remarry 2nd and 3rd times than women do. Since as people age, single women begin to outnumber single men, this would seem to argue against it being the women pushing marriage; after all, if a woman pushed a man who wasn't interested in marriage, he could simply find a woman who would accept him sans the "I do" part.


You didn't offer any reason as to why it's ok to pick and choose what parts of the marriage tradition you will follow though?

Well, if we're going to stick with "tradition" - no sex before marriage, no co-habitation before marriage, year-long engagement, bans published, church wedding only, white dress, tuxedo, bride's parents pay for the wedding, groom's parents pay a dowry (or is it the other way around??), bride and groom dance first dance, dad dances with daughter/mom dances with son-in-law; wife doesn't work after marriage, kids to follow shortly. These all come with 'traditional marriage', among many others that I can't remember or never knew.

We all "pick and choose" which traditions we'll follow, even in the most "traditional" of marriages.

I am quite surprised, honestly, that so many men see this tradition as being important. Anyone able to explain to me why this tradition, in particular, has such support from the men? (and using "can't pick and choose which tradition to follow" isn't an answer; men are quite happy to toss out all kinds of "tradition" when it suits them, too).
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 114 (view)
 
Says we are not dating yet we are taking it slow.
Posted: 12/10/2009 8:17:35 AM

It wasn't cruel nor was it sadistic or twisted.

Yeah, it was. You were way out of line, if not in strict forum rules, at least in treating someone with basic respect. You say it's not your job to be nice to strangers; perhaps those words will come back to haunt you when someday when you are vulnerable/hurt and those who could have helped turn away because its "not their job to be nice to strangers". Your attitude is exactly why people say "nobody cares anymore; whatever happened to common courtesy" that people go on about and usually blame on the younger generation. You seem to be proud of your ugliness disguised, in your mind at least, as "honesty".


I stated my opinions of a "single mom" based solely on her own statements.

And you got a number of those statements wrong; perhaps blinded by your moralistic self-righteousness.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 90 (view)
 
Taking his name....?
Posted: 12/9/2009 2:42:09 PM

In the last few days I have watched what appeared to be a very happy and healthy relation

Apparently, not so much. If they've both dug in their heels over this, and it's only taken a few days - I'm thinking there are other issues, but this is the one they've decided to "use".


So I was hoping some people here could clue me in on some valid reasons why a woman wouldn't take their husbands name.

Names are kind of funny - they're intrinsically tied up with one's sense of identity, who they are, and who they want to appear to be. I've had 3 of 5 siblings deliberately change their first name because it didn't portray who they felt they were: one brother, from Kerry to Chris (in grade 1; Kerry was a "girl's name"); my sister, from Peggy to Margaret (people take a woman named "Margaret" more seriously than one named "Peggy"); another sister, from Julie to Jewel (and yes, a sweet person in many ways but she does have a slight "entitlement" attitude).

When I was born, I was given my bio father's last name. When I was adopted later on, I suddenly had a new surname - I wasn't consulted at all, my feelings about it were completely ignored. When I got married, there was no question in anyone's mind that I'd just take my husband's last name. My last name has ceased to have anything to do with me or my identity; I use my first name as my identity, the last name attached with no importance or meaning. Stated somewhat simply, it felt as if the way in which my name got changed - based on what OTHER people wanted, made me feel powerless. I coped by simply ejecting any sense of attachment to my last name. However, someone else in similar situation might react by deciding that THIS is their name, their identity, and they're just not going to change it.

Whether that has anything with your friends, I have no clue. But, if I decided to dig in my heels about a name change due to marriage, it'd be bound up with maintaining my identity.

Btw, why is he digging his heels in? Why is it so important to him that her last name be the same as his? I'm really curious, not trying for "good for the goose, good for the gander" response.
 
Show ALL Forums