It works in 1% of A-R marriages when people go for the second or third marriage with kids from their previous relationship.
This is so much B.S. You don't have a clue how many are successful and neither does anyone else. 1% I seriously doubt it.
There is NO way a woman in her 40's drops everything, goes to the US to marry a guy with a prenup and she will want nothing.
Happens every day whether you like it or not!
I am not surpised AM (and Ed) applaud you because this is exactly what they want- cheap or free wife.
Not really! Cheap or free has nothing to do with it. Perhaps finding a woman that knows how to love and treat a man as well as having a pleasant personality is more important than finances. In any case it is not cheap.
More of your hatred toward prenups. For your info, prenups protect the pre-marital assets of both parties. Many FSU women have business interests and propery that should be protected for their sake also. Futhermore, estate planning for the security of the wife can also be included in a pre-nup.
Perhaps you had nothing significant to require a prenup, it does not mean others are in the same boat.
Many AM are happily married to UA women with or without a prenup. Your disdain toward AM shows in nearly every post. For some reason you think every FSU woman is stupid to fall in love and immigrate to the US as well as being a victim. You just cannot fathom the idea that two people can fall in love and have a happy marriage.
Give the sarcasm and negativity a rest for a while.
Give the sarcasm and negativity a rest for a while.It is a free country, besides it is approved by AnonMod now. :D :D :D
More of your hatred toward prenups. For your info, prenups protect the
pre-marital assets of both parties. Many FSU women have business interests and
propery that should be protected for their sake also. Futhermore, estate
planning for the security of the wife can also be included in a pre-nup.
Perhaps you had nothing significant to require a prenup, it does not mean
others are in the same boat.
Tulip, of course the AM members loved what you wrote.
I disagree with this. Prenups are there primarily to protect the interests of men marrying FSUW. You show me an FSUW living in the the FSU who has assets equal in value to those of the man she is marrying, and I'll show you a woman who is not marrying a WM. Further, prenups have no effect on FSUW in terms of protecting their assets in Russia/Ukraine. Ukraine is a signatory to recipricol enforcement legislation, but there are typically very strict time limits for enforcement, and it is not an easy process, particularly in a country where a local knows who to bribe and resentment of Westerners does exist. I don't know if Russia is a signatory to such legislation, but if so, I'd expect the situation to be similar.
I think you missed the point. A prenup in a California divorce will prevent the husband from claiming premarital assets of the wife regardless of where they are located.You contradict yourself in this post. If premarital property is off limits during divorce (and it is in every state), why would one need a prenup to prevent a spouse "from claiming premarital assets of another spouse regardless of where they are located."?
Furthermore, unless the law has changed recently; premarital property is still off limits to the opposite spouse unless you have co-mingled the assets. This is perhaps more important than a prenup for someone with substantial premarital assets.
You contradict yourself in this post. If premarital property is off limits during divorce (and it is in every state), why would one need a prenup to prevent a spouse "from claiming premarital assets of another spouse regardless of where they are located."?
Evidently, there is another reason. Since in 99% of cases it is a WM who insists on a pre-nup, and his premarital property is already protected by law in case of divorce, then he needs a prenup for one major reason - to make sure RW gets less during the divorce than a standard divorce proceeding would grant her. Simply, prenups are primarily to protect the ineterests of men marrying FSUW - just like Boe said ;D
You contradict yourself in this post. If premarital property is off limits during divorce (and it is in every state), why would one need a prenup to prevent a spouse "from claiming premarital assets of another spouse regardless of where they are located."?
Evidently, there is another reason. Since in 99% of cases it is a WM who insists on a pre-nup, and his premarital property is already protected by law in case of divorce, then he needs a prenup for one major reason - to make sure RW gets less during the divorce than a standard divorce proceeding would grant her. Simply, prenups are primarily to protect the ineterests of men marrying FSUW - just like Boe said ;D
Why should a woman deserve premarital assets? It isn't just the premarital assets but the increase of value of those premarital assets during a marriage that needs to be addressed.
As I recall, all states are not community property states.I am perfectly fine with the community property divorce laws. If they are that fare and simple, why do men from community property states insist on prenups?
Simply, prenups are primarily to protect the ineterests of men marrying FSUW
How do you figure this? In community property states the wealth accumulated during the marriage is divided 50/50. What more do you think someone deserves?
I am perfectly fine with the community property divorce laws. If they are that fare and simple, why do men from community property states insist on prenups?
Also, are you saying that premarital assets are subject to division in non-community property states?
Simply, why do men require prenups if divorce laws are fare in the United States?
Because contracts (presumably business) are guided by contract law?
Why have any contracts for anything?
Because contracts (presumably business) are guided by contract law?
Just like divorces are guided by an extensive existing divorce law? When one party exists on a pre-nup it means that they want to get more in divorce than the existing divorce law would grant them? Why prenup if there are detailed guidilines on how a divorce is handled already?
I am perfectly fine with the community property divorce laws. If they are that fare and simple, why do men from community property states insist on prenups?
I cannot answer for other men. Perhaps it is because sometimes the tear jerking in court results in awards that are not consistent with the law.
Also, are you saying that premarital assets are subject to division in non-community property states?
I don't know about non-community property states anymore. A few years ago, those states had wildly different laws governing property division in divorce.
Simply, why do men require prenups if divorce laws are fare in the United States?
Because at divorce time the women and her lawyers try to get their hands on every nickle they can find! At that point the intent of the law means nothing, only greed.
Because at divorce time the women and her lawyers try to get their hands on every nickle they can find! At that point the intent of the law means nothing, only greed.
There are also probate laws yet people like to have wills.
Excellent example!
Simply, why do men require prenups if divorce laws are fare in the United States?presumably the woman has the right to get a share of every nickle accumulated in the course of marriage? And will not get more than the divorce law allows?
Because at divorce time the women and her lawyers try to get their hands on every nickle they can find! At that point the intent of the law means nothing, only greed.
If premarital property is off limits during divorce (and it is in every state), why would one need a prenup to prevent a spouse "from claiming premarital assets of another spouse regardless of where they are located."?
Plenty of men try to screw over their wives.
I never met a more intelligent, kind, loving, tender, funny, sassy, fun-loving woman like her.
presumably the woman has the right to get a share of every nickle accumulated in the course of marriage? And will not get more than the divorce law allows?
In a community property state, this is the intent.
However, Larry1 gave a great example of what can happen in real life in our courts. Prior to the case he cited, property division was between married couples getting a divorce, not shack jobs. In this case a good lawyer and liberal judges MADE LAW, rather than the legislature (who is supposed to make law). The result was the 'Palimony' ruling that allowed people shacking up to have the same rights to property division as married couples. You can imagine the furor it caused. Many men threw out their girlfriends and many men started the big move to Pre-nups before letting someone move in.
The reason I bring this up is to supplement BillyB's post. You cannot depend on our courts to follow the law. If a judge is biased and does not like the law, he will ignore it or make a ruling that is contrary to the existing law. It goes uphill to the supreme court where more judges apply their biases. Unfortunately it does not get kicked back to the legislature where the laws should be modified if our elected officials thought it necessary. In my opinion judges have way too much power. It is a flaw in our system IMHO.
I think it was Billy's point that regardless of what the law says in print, there is no guarantee that judges will be unbiased and follow the written law.
I thought of another example for you in favor of prenups. Just like the unmarried couples prior to 'Palimony', the law can change during a long term marriage.
What if during a long term marriage, the law changed to favor one party or the other? You got married under one set of laws and all of a sudden the law changed. As I recall pre-nups in California are considered Contract Law, not marriage law. This might have changed, but it is what people did that wanted a stable set of rules throughout the marriage or relationship. I hope this answers some of your concerns.
Do I understand correctly that you do not agree with the law on this and would need a prenup to ensure that she "doesn't get her hands" on a portion of marital assets that would otherwise be divided by existing divorce law?
No, of course not. The portion of marital assets that would otherwise be divided by existing divorce law? are already covered in the community property states. Protecting oneself from her getting 'seperate, pre-marital' property is the main reason for pre-nups. It identifies the seperate property and makes it more clear what is exempt from community property.
So, a prenup IS afterall needed to protect a man's interests from the greedy FSUW?
It may be important for either party to prevent pre-marital assets from being claimed by the other party. It works equally for both sexes. ;D
Doll, count me out.Ok, you're out :D
I don't love reading fairy tales written by someone with the mind of a teenage princess wannabe.
Ok, you're out :D
Women like Tulip basically tell you (or men)what you (men) want to hear. She probably does believe in it somehow but wait till she faces the reality.
You guys go and read RW forum.
Please be reminded that promoting other forums is against the rules. Several of us have already been hammared for this is the past. ;DOh, please! No threats. Many members do read it AND refer.
Boe, I am not very knowledgeable about this, so could you please comment on the part Cal wrote:
"Futhermore, estate planning for the security of the wife can also be included in a pre-nup."
Isn't this something of value for the woman?
I think you missed the point. A prenup in a California divorce will prevent the husband from claiming premarital assets of the wife regardless of where they are located.
Your comment about a FSU women would not marry a AM if she had equal or greater assets is false. We have members on the forum that have already done so. In fact, in one case I don't think they even have a prenup. They may not want to share their financial info with you , but there are cases refuting your comment right on the forum
I am not sure I understand your comment about prenups primarily protecting AM. If fact, for young people with no large assets to protect, a pre-nup is not necessary. In all of the community property states, whatever wealth is accumulated during a marriage is split 50/50. Unless one of the parties wants to waive those rights, there is no reason for a pre-nup. As others have posted, such a waiver is likely to be overturned anyway.
Furthermore, unless the law has changed recently; premarital property is still off limits to the opposite spouse unless you have co-mingled the assets. This is perhaps more important than a prenup for someone with substantial premarital assets.
The impression I get from some of you ladies is that most/many AM are going to throw their wives out into the street and penniless. I don't buy it! You can take some isolated cases and try to imply that it is the norm, but I have not seen it. In fact, my Russian neighbor can tell you all kinds of stories where Russian women have taken advantage of AM. In one case, a Russian doctor immigrated to the US and her husband put her through several years of medical college and she filed for divorce the day she received her US diplomas. I don't believe that her behavior is the norm of FSU women any more than I believe the norm of AM is to throw out their wives and leave them penniless.
There are also probate laws yet people like to have wills.
Much of the discussion that I have heard is from people that have not accumulated assets, and, therefore, cannot picture the way the law disseminates those assets.
Seriously, normal healthy relationships aren't that complicated. They don't require opinions of the crowd either. If you need advice, you don't go to people you don't know, you ask the person you are in a relationship with.
...You have a good head on your shoulders...
Seriously, normal healthy relationships aren't that complicated. They don't require opinions of the crowd either. If you need advice, you don't go to people you don't know, you ask the person you are in a relationship with.
We know of cases on this very forum where an FSUW was left scrambling, working two jobs to make ends meet. There are many other examples on the FSUW women forums of women holding down two jobs, usually as a sales clerk, to make it on her own. That is why I, and the FSUW here, applaud GQBlues. He ensured that if something happens to him, or in the unlikely event they were to split, she would have the same lifestyle she had when she was with him.
I am not surpised AM (and Ed) applaud you because this is exactly what they want- cheap or free wife.
Tulip, of course the AM members loved what you wrote. Love, pure love, purified love and nothing else.
It works in 1% of A-R marriages when people go for the second or third marriage with kids from their previous relationship.
There is NO way a woman in her 40's drops everything, goes to the US to marry a guy with a prenup and she will want nothing.
I am not surpised AM (and Ed) applaud you because this is exactly what they want- cheap or free wife.
AM protect themselves and their kids with prenups and a RW only can "love" and be thankful (for whatever you want to be thankful))).
Флаг тебе в руки и барабан на шею :D
Doll, count me out.
I don't love reading fairy tales written by someone with the mind of a teenage princess wannabe.
...You guys go and read RW forum...
Tulip, welcome to the forum. You are refreshing voice here. If you have not already done so, you might want to go to the Get Acquaianted thread and tell us a little about yourself. If you are single, I am sure you will have many suitors from here. ;D
The wisdom in your posts and your pleasant personality are very welcome.
Cheep and free wife? No foreign wife is cheap and free. I just believe that every man ( male ) wants to be beloved how he is and what person he is, not depending on his wallet's size.
This whole thing reeks of evil to the very core.
If modern marriage has been reduced to this petty thought process of " what do I get out of it ? "
and Divorce has the effect of resolving the agreement of " I did not get what I thought I would , or what I wanted "
Then a pre nump is the equal of admitting you don't know the person well enough to become married to them, and more over , you don't trust them with your "stuff", and that "stuff " is more important to protect than anything else.
This whole mindset of the mass acquisition of money or material things is just a face painted another color over greed and envy.
It's just stuff.
It's only money.
Modern Marriages that need these long agreements and disclaimers seem to not be about happiness and love, but about something very far from those ideals.
IMO
I disagree with parts of this.
Some of best advice comes from independent third parties who have no emotional stake in the situation.
This is why specialists in relationship counseling exist.
Even untrained persons, such as we here, can give insights that might not have been thought of by the two parties.
Cheep and free wife? No foreign wife is cheap and free. I just believe that every man ( male ) wants to be beloved how he is and what person he is, not depending on his wallet's size.
I am perfectly fine with the community property divorce laws. If they are that fare and simple, why do men from community property states insist on prenups?It is not divorce laws, it is court and judge who are not considered as fair for some who have assets or business. The question is why so many guys want today to make prenupt? Because the law (the judges) don't protect them.
Also, are you saying that premarital assets are subject to division in non-community property states?
Simply, why do men require prenups if divorce laws are fare in the United States?
It is not divorce laws, it is court and judge who are not considered as fair for some who have assets or business. The question is why so many guys want today to make prenupt? Because the law (the judges) don't protect them.
i'll let her speak for herself, but my take on fashionista's thought was that if a guy has to ask if she's the girlfriend... or just the girlfriend experience, then the guy deep down probably already knows the answer.
i agree 100%. keep 'em coming, syestra!
but unfortunately there are some (foolish) men who don't realize that a marriage with a rw will generally incur a lot more expenses than marriage to an aw.
Modern Marriages that need these long agreements and disclaimers seem to not be about happiness and love, but about something very far from those ideals.
Still believing in that "pleasant personality" fantasy, calmissile?
presumably the woman has the right to get a share of every nickle accumulated in the course of marriage? And will not get more than the divorce law allows?Why would get half of marital assets which don't belong to you ?
Do I understand correctly that you do not agree with the law on this and would need a prenup to ensure that she "doesn't get her hands" on a portion of marital assets that would otherwise be divided by existing divorce law?
So, a prenup IS afterall needed to protect a man's interests from the greedy FSUW?
That is untrue. Up to the 1990's, women's standards of living decreased dramatically after divorce, while men's increased by about, on average 15%. Since that time, the standards have leveled off. It is not because of "unfair" courts, but because women are earning more in the workforce.
I was talking in my post about men who date FSU women, they are not average. They have at least a well off income in general.
I have never been saying what others want to hear. I got used to saying what I think about.Tulip, problem is that your words or thoughts are so typical for a teenager girl with no real experience in life. Well, they are shown in movies like that. :) I believe you're saying what you're thinking here and right now. I believe the love exists though in different shape from your conception. I'm afraid you have no idea about how ephemeral feeling of love can be in many cases.
Tulip, problem is that your words or thoughts are so typical for a teenager girl with no real experience in life. Well, they are shown in movies like that. :) I believe you're saying what you're thinking here and right now. I believe the love exists though in different shape from your conception. I'm afraid you have no idea about how ephemeral feeling of love can be in many cases.
That may be the world of teens, but true love of any depth is usually more than just a feeling.And not always a fun :)
Why would get half of marital assets which don't belong to you ?Because all the assets accumulated in the course of marriage belong to both spouses and should be divided 50/50
I wouldn't marry someone who I did not trust 100% in all circumstances, good or bad.
Because all the assets accumulated in the course of marriage belong to both spouses and should be divided 50/50
The problem of trust and fairness is two totally differents things and should be strictly evaluated apart. It shouldn't be linked at any time.
But it still goes to the point of loving their money more than their women, of entering into a relationship without the requisite trust to have a true partnership.
As has been posted, in most North American jurisdictions, assets acquired during marriage are split 50/50 and those acquired before marriage are exempt, although the increase in value of those assets is split. There are a few jurisdictions where all assets are split 50/50, but that is not the norm.
You cannot welcome a woman saying : "i have so love him that i want nothing from him, nothing".
But it still goes to the point of loving their money more than their women, of entering into a relationship without the requisite trust to have a true partnership.
As has been posted, in most North American jurisdictions, assets acquired during marriage are split 50/50 and those acquired before marriage are exempt, although the increase in value of those assets is split. There are a few jurisdictions where all assets are split 50/50, but that is not the norm.
Man: Honey would you still love me if I lost all my money?You are playful today ML. :P
Woman: Yes, of course. And I would miss you also.
The problem of trust and fairness is two totally differents things and should be strictly evaluated apart. It shouldn't be linked at any time.
You cannot mix in your work of judge or lawyer trust/emotions and fairness.
You cannot welcome a woman saying : "i have so love him that i want nothing from him, nothing". You would know more about her life and her to be protected, at minima, because you are a professional and you want to assess where she will be in the channel/the range of the fairness.
So a man need to do the same, have i improved her life, for tomorrow, and what will be mine ?
i'll let her speak for herself, but my take on fashionista's thought was that if a guy has to ask if she's the girlfriend... or just the girlfriend experience, then the guy deep down probably already knows the answer.
Not always. I actually like to learn from others and appreciate and respect their opinion. Sometimes I NEED a 'reality' check.
Still believing in that "pleasant personality" fantasy, calmissile?
Because all the assets accumulated in the course of marriage belong to both spouses and should be divided 50/50
Man: Honey would you still love me if I lost all my money?
Woman: Yes, of course. And I would miss you also.
This whole thing reeks of evil to the very core.
If modern marriage has been reduced to this petty thought process of " what do I get out of it ? "
and Divorce has the effect of resolving the agreement of " I did not get what I thought I would , or what I wanted "
Then a pre nump is the equal of admitting you don't know the person well enough to become married to them, and more over , you don't trust them with your "stuff", and that "stuff " is more important to protect than anything else.
This whole mindset of the mass acquisition of money or material things is just a face painted another color over greed and envy.
It's just stuff.
It's only money.
Modern Marriages that need these long agreements and disclaimers seem to not be about happiness and love, but about something very far from those ideals.
IMO
It is not divorce laws, it is court and judge who are not considered as fair for some who have assets or business. The question is why so many guys want today to make prenupt? Because the law (the judges) don't protect them.
Those in disfavor of prenups seem to be taking a simple view. If family law were that simple, real estate attorneys would handle divorces.
Is there anyone who marries without trusting the other person? I think not. Yet, 50% of marriages end in divorce. Why? Easy answer - things change. That is reason enough for a prenup.
Would you go 49/51 if I throw in the dog and our sex tapes also?
It was a rhetorical question. Nevertheless, I disagree. She bites just as "hard" as any other woman here.
I can't understand why there is so much poison and spite in your words. The only one reason, I believe, is that you are not happy. Your lot ( destiny ) - to be dumb ( wordless ) in your family as you seem to be "nothing" there, like "zero" for your husband and you are off your husband's mind and his attention. You seem not to have got what had been expected by you. And you have neither love from your "best-half", nor even simple things, I believe. The only thing you can be pleased with and can allow yourself is to spread all your poison and negative emotions on other persons here, believing that no feelings exist and there is only a will of benefits. I am sure if some day your husband loses his money ( his job etc ) you will disappear out of his life and go for looking for "someone next", who is able to give you more. I have never been saying what others want to hear. I got used to saying what I think about. As for a drum and a flag.. I could advise you to put it into a place, that had been advised by Melanie Griffith in "Working Girl" but I won't do it. Just take that flag and that drum and lead the column of such unhappy and willing-a-lot-but-getting-nothing persons like you :welcome:
LMFAO
You think a man who imported a young, hot babe for marriage and tells her she has to sign a prenup has a lot of trust in her?
Where is it? Where is it?
Ah, here it is.
:ROFL:
It was a rhetorical question. Nevertheless, I disagree. She bites just as "hard" as any other woman here.
Rewind => Play => Repeat :clapping:
I could not contain myself. My jaw dropped and I wanted to laugh but I'm at my desk so I had to muffle my laughter.
Tulip, your husband is a very lucky man.
+100
Here is something to ponder for fun!He will go back to his country of cause!
What if the situation was reversed.......
The wife wants the husband to immigrate to the FSU because she does not want to immigrate.
Assuming the roles were reversed....
The poor guy will have to further his education to get a job and that will take time.
He is leaving all his friends and relatives behind which he loves dearly.
What happens when the quick tempered FSU wife throws him out of the house without a penny?
How will he survive?
He might even have to start a forum for whining men that were abused by their wives and left destitute.
Should he make the same demands for security in advance such as some women are suggesting?
Sorry, just a twisted moment today.
I can't understand why there is so much poison and spite in your words. The only one reason, I believe, is that you are not happy. Your lot ( destiny ) - to be dumb ( wordless ) in your family as you seem to be "nothing" there, like "zero" for your husband and you are off your husband's mind and his attention. You seem not to have got what had been expected by you. And you have neither love from your "best-half", nor even simple things, I believe. The only thing you can be pleased with and can allow yourself is to spread all your poison and negative emotions on other persons here, believing that no feelings exist and there is only a will of benefits. I am sure if some day your husband loses his money ( his job etc ) you will disappear out of his life and go for looking for "someone next", who is able to give you more. I have never been saying what others want to hear. I got used to saying what I think about. As for a drum and a flag.. I could advise you to put it into a place, that had been advised by Melanie Griffith in "Working Girl" but I won't do it. Just take that flag and that drum and lead the column of such unhappy and willing-a-lot-but-getting-nothing persons like you :welcome:Girl, what is quoted in this post is a PERSONAL attack. You know nothing about me or my family, yet you "assume" all these things.
Bzzzz Wrong!!I never said that a guy should loose nothing.
I have a male friend who is very loud, profane, and short-tempered. Still, he is a good friend.
He dated many gorgeous babes and finally married. The woman came from high society and very proper. I always scratched my head about that one. They had a child.
Eventually the waters came to be leveled and they started having problems. The inevitable happened and they filed for divorce.
I remember advising him to be smart because his business was on the line.
Yea, right.
No one was going to tell him he was wrong, it was his business, he built it from the ground up, yadda, yadda, yadda.
You guessed it. He was spanked in court. Not because the judge was against men, but because he was a royal idiot.
Eventually, he lost his business and filed for bankruptcy.
You should hear him basically saying the same above. Judges hate men, women will screw you in court, bla, bla, bla.
These are the cases you hear about.
Those guys who lost nothing in court? No one believes them. I should know.
Here is something to ponder for fun!
What if the situation was reversed.......
The wife wants the husband to immigrate to the FSU because she does not want to immigrate.
Assuming the roles were reversed....
The poor guy will have to further his education to get a job and that will take time.
He is leaving all his friends and relatives behind which he loves dearly.
What happens when the quick tempered FSU wife throws him out of the house without a penny?
How will he survive?
He might even have to start a forum for whining men that were abused by their wives and left destitute.
Should he make the same demands for security in advance such as some women are suggesting?
Sorry, just a twisted moment today.
Then a pre nump is the equal of admitting you don't know the person well enough to become married to them,
Isn't the rationale for the choice of FSUW as mates because they allegedly have not been "contaminated" by the "feminazi" ideas WW allegedly hold dear? Don't MOB sites, and certain males on this very forum, espouse the "femininity" and "traditional values" WW allegedly eschew? So, if you are seeking a woman from a "traditional" culture, that means accepting her "traditional" values, i.e., men are the family's providers and are expected to go out and earn a living no matter what the consequences, and to support their women no matter what.
If you want alimony, marry a WW.
Get back in the kitchen, woman. Who gave you a say?
A prenup is another document that can ease the pain of two people divorcing and keep the attorneys from making an expensive fight. Nobody should sign a prenup they don't agree to, feel comfortable with, and/or is not fair. They should sign only when they feel happy that it's fair. If they don't like it or lose trust in their partner, they should not get married.
The problem with a prenup IMHO, is it provides and establishes an "out". Marriage is suppose to be for a lifetime. If you can see that going in, it isn't going to be a lifetime, again IMHO, it's much better to not get in it. Marriage can and does require real sacrifice that goes well beyond money and possessions. A prenup is as tempting to both parties that agreed to it to check it's worth and exit the marriage when the waters get rough.
If you can see that going in, it isn't going to be a lifetime, again IMHO, it's much better to not get in it.
Yet most guys on this forum are on their second or third marriages.
Lot of intelligent people with good intentions participate at this forum. We thought we knew the bright future entering our first marriage but found out we aren't psychic.
Meh, I don't know. I do have substantial assets. But I wouldn't get a prenup anyway, and had I married a wealthy man, were I to divorce, I wouldn't ask for a cut of his assets. It's just not the way I live.
No, most of my clients are already married. But if a client of wealth is going into a second marriage, yes, I do advise them to get prenups, and if a client asked if it was a good idea from a legal perspective, I would say yes. I don't draft them, though.
In my observation, businessmen are great providers, but, in general terms, they are not great husbands, unless their wives are equally involved in the business, or are fine being, for all intents and purposes, "single".
My post wasn't intended to slight anyone. It was merely to present reality. I think most people enter into marriage with the best of intentions yet we see a high divorce rate.
Things change and our society has made getting out of marriage incredibly easy.
I think most people wish for the movie love affairs that last forever. Reality is different... Look at people saying a marriage that lasts 10/14 years is considered successful.
These pre-nup discussions come up here frequently.
As some have said before me; it all boils down to one factor.
The haves and have-nots.
Those men who don't have substantial assets obviously see no reason for pre-nups. But instead of admitting to the logic of why they feel this way, they espouse the high minded ideas of love, trust, knowing the other person, money is just pieces of paper and bla, bla, bla.
Sort of the reverse of the playboy with inherited wealth who ridicules someone who has to worry about where his next meal is coming from.
It is not a concern for him (where his next meal comes from); thus it is wrong for anyone else to be concerned.
Those women who don't have their own substantial assets despise the idea of pre-nups.
This is all pretty much cut and dry logic; yet the arguments go on and on.
These pre-nup discussions come up here frequently.
As some have said before me; it all boils down to one factor.
The haves and have-nots.
Those men who don't have substantial assets obviously see no reason for pre-nups. But instead of admitting to the logic of why they feel this way, they espouse the high minded ideas of love, trust, knowing the other person, money is just pieces of paper and bla, bla, bla.
Sort of the reverse of the playboy with inherited wealth who ridicules someone who has to worry about where his next meal is coming from.
It is not a concern for him (where his next meal comes from); thus it is wrong for anyone else to be concerned.
Those women who don't have their own substantial assets despise the idea of pre-nups.
This is all pretty much cut and dry logic; yet the arguments go on and on.
Maybe it's because you make it different and accept that as an excuse, it's not.
Bullshit. You can beat off over your "substantial assets" till the cows come home and call prenups high moral ground but, it isn't. If you can't handle marriage, don't marry or marry someone with as much as you. It's quite simple isn't it? Or wait, your wealth is so substantial you have no equal? Cry me a river. :rolleyes:
These pre-nup discussions come up here frequently.:applaud: :applaud: :applaud:
As some have said before me; it all boils down to one factor.
The haves and have-nots.
Those men who don't have substantial assets obviously see no reason for pre-nups. But instead of admitting to the logic of why they feel this way, they espouse the high minded ideas of love, trust, knowing the other person, money is just pieces of paper and bla, bla, bla.
Sort of the reverse of the playboy with inherited wealth who ridicules someone who has to worry about where his next meal is coming from.
It is not a concern for him (where his next meal comes from); thus it is wrong for anyone else to be concerned.
Those women who don't have their own substantial assets despise the idea of pre-nups.
This is all pretty much cut and dry logic; yet the arguments go on and on.
As i have already said : "The problem of trust and fairness is two totally differents things and should be strictly evaluated apart. It shouldn't be linked at any time."
There are here who try to link it all time.
Knowing what had become divorce last two decades for men who are making more than average (generally all posters here are involved) : almost 1 mariage fails for two.
Would you push YOUR SON (or incoming), with the same logic, especially if he is brilliant and especially if your couple would have paid through the nose a graduate university for him ???
I would see how many, man and woman, defending the binary logic "you trust, you halve" (in fact it is more than halving for the men, some have come here saying that they have lost till 80%) will continue to apply it the day they marry their son (curiously the problem doesn't exist for daughters.)
I would, and will, try to teach my kids what is really valuable in life and that is certainly not related to money or stuff.
This is the real difference between most of those that want a pre-nup and those that don't. You guys value stuff way too much and I suspect it will hurt your marriages in the long run. :-X
Let me understand your position better. Lets take an example of a couple about to get married.
The wife has 2 homes she inherited as well as an estate she is earning income from. The hubby is a truck driver making average wages and no substantial assets.
If I understand you correctly, both parties should pool all their money into one pot and live happily ever after. If there is a divorce the 'pot' would be split 50/50. Is this consistent with your logic?
Facing these costs, why would a man enter a marriage expecting it to fail? I assert the man who marries has trust. Call him mentally impaired because of cranial-phallic blood shunting, yet for sure he is a believer in the institution of marriage, family etc.
Here is something to ponder for fun!
What if the situation was reversed.......
The wife wants the husband to immigrate to the FSU because she does not want to immigrate.
Assuming the roles were reversed....
The poor guy will have to further his education to get a job and that will take time.
He is leaving all his friends and relatives behind which he loves dearly.
What happens when the quick tempered FSU wife throws him out of the house without a penny?
How will he survive?
He might even have to start a forum for whining men that were abused by their wives and left destitute.
Should he make the same demands for security in advance such as some women are suggesting?
Sorry, just a twisted moment today.
I never said that a guy should loose nothing.
But obsiouvly this one was enough stupid to not sign a prenup to protect his business at least.
So yes the court didn't protect him because the common mariage didn't not exclude business and so the court.
He should have sign a prenup like Gator has explained previously.
The problem with a prenup IMHO, is it provides and establishes an "out". Marriage is suppose to be for a lifetime. If you can see that going in, it isn't going to be a lifetime, again IMHO, it's much better to not get in it. Marriage can and does require real sacrifice (and lots of work - Me) that goes well beyond money and possessions. A prenup is as tempting to both parties that agreed to it to check it's worth and exit the marriage when the waters get rough.
Lot of intelligent people with good intentions participate at this forum. We thought we knew the bright future entering our first marriage but found out we aren't psychic.
These pre-nup discussions come up here frequently.
As some have said before me; it all boils down to one factor.
The haves and have-nots.
Those men who don't have substantial assets obviously see no reason for pre-nups. But instead of admitting to the logic of why they feel this way, they espouse the high minded ideas of love, trust, knowing the other person, money is just pieces of paper and bla, bla, bla.
Sort of the reverse of the playboy with inherited wealth who ridicules someone who has to worry about where his next meal is coming from.
It is not a concern for him (where his next meal comes from); thus it is wrong for anyone else to be concerned.
Those women who don't have their own substantial assets despise the idea of pre-nups.
This is all pretty much cut and dry logic; yet the arguments go on and on.
Let me understand your position better. Lets take an example of a couple about to get married.
The wife has 2 homes she inherited as well as an estate she is earning income from. The hubby is a truck driver making average wages and no substantial assets.
If I understand you correctly, both parties should pool all their money into one pot and live happily ever after. If there is a divorce the 'pot' would be split 50/50. Is this consistent with your logic?
I would, and will, try to teach my kids what is really valuable in life and that is certainly not related to money or stuff.
This is the real difference between most of those that want a pre-nup and those that don't. You guys value stuff way too much and I suspect it will hurt your marriages in the long run. :-X
What will hurt me will be, as most part of my wealth comes from my family is to see my father, grand father, grand mother standing up from their graves and looking at me every morning in the bathroom with this disappointed face : "why have you been so stupid ?" for the rest of my life if i divorce, giving a large part of what i own. Do i spit to 3 full generations of labour, my own blood ? THREE GENERATIONS of labour disbanded in few minutes because i im too lazy or too craven to not sign a document ?
I would, and will, try to teach my kids what is really valuable in life and that is certainly not related to money or stuff.
This is the real difference between most of those that want a pre-nup and those that don't. You guys value stuff way too much and I suspect it will hurt your marriages in the long run. :-X
You are the one who does not get it.
If a man trust his babe, there is no reason for him to start thinking about divorce and maintenance BEFORE they even get married.
Ergo, anyone who is demanding prenups is planning to fail.
It IS that plain and simple.
Planning to fail? Or planning for the adverse consequences if failure, however unlikely, were to occur.
I see you understand now. Planning to fail.
Dude, I've been doing risk assessments for risk managers for almost 30 years. I KNOW what risk management is. Planning for failure.
No calmissle, that is not at all what I stated. Does the wife having two homes and an income earning estate seem to you as the prevailing problem here?
Much as Ade pointed out. If you have 5 million in personal wealth and get divorced and lose half of it to a spouse thus leaving you with a paltry 2.5 million and the guy down the street has $100K in his 401K account and $50K equity in his house and loses half of that in a divorce, who is the worse off? You greedy bastids will say the one with 2.5 mil and that's just not the the case. Would you rather have the 2.5 mil or the $75K most of which is nothing but paper? So you guys with "substantial assets" whinning over "oh I HAVE to have a prenup" are just blowing smoke up your own ass. If you are that weathy and that scared of losing some or all of it, simply don't marry.
That said, a good business person is going to protect that business. Separating personal wealth from business wealth is sound business practice. If I had a family fortune and heirs to protect, I would protect them but, that would not be "my" wealth anyway. I would still have "my" personal wealth and a woman I chose to marry would be subject to that.
I am not a wealthy man by any measures but, I am no pauper either. However, my personal wealth is just as important to me as you blowhards claiming "substantial assets". Do not think for a moment that it isn't. Back to my original point, I would not marry a woman who was not worthy of at least half of my "stuff" :D
...I will now become part of this forum and I will listen, share and learn...
I see you understand now. Planning to fail.
Dude, I've been doing risk assessments for risk managers for almost 30 years. I KNOW what risk management is. Planning for failure.
I am not sure if an RW is what I want to pursue. It seems to be a lot of work. I will keep an open mind though.
There are many fine and sincere RW who would enjoy meeting you. You will know what to do. So I suggest that you give it another try.
I will now become part of this forum and I will listen, share and learn. I am not sure if an RW is what I want to pursue. It seems to be a lot of work. I will keep an open mind though.
Best wishes to all!
That's sort of interesting. You are an expert in risk management, yet you can ignore the 50% failure rate in marriages. It appears that your 'moral views' is allowing you to ignore the 50% risk factor that you would normally be considering in your risk management training and experience.Yes good question, why is he so furious with people whot takes THE unavoidable 50 % in account ?
Somehow that does not square when applying simple logic. I doubt anyone has any issue with whatever you choose for yourself (prenup or no-prenuup). Why are you so furious with people that have a different set of views?
Is it really possible that someone can fake deep love and affection and do it so well?Love is a bitch. You were lucky she was sincere with you and you saw her personality crystal clear.
Why do you use the term "planning to fail" instead of "planning for failure." Prepositions have meaning to me.
If I surmise correctly from the little you reveal in your posts about your profession, your work dealt with toxic chemicals, presumably with regard to carcinogenesis. The lifetime probability that a human will die of cancer is 25%, yet the federal government standard for exposure is to not increase cancer risk by more than 1x106 .
In other words, your 30 years of risk assessments had the objective to assure cancer risk does not increase from 25% to 25.000001%. Please don't suggest that everyone should ignore a 50% probability of failure when your professional mission was a scientific analysis of a 0.000001% probability target.
We are from different planets. I give my opinion for my life, pointing out my reasons for a prenup and highlighting the protection that a good prenup can afford both parties. I do not state that everyone should do it, nor do I criticize those who do not. You voice a contrarian opinion. And that is what RWD does best. However, you do not stop there but criticize if not belittle those who consider more issues than you did. Do you see the difference? Why make it personal?
I am becoming less tolerant, or more jaded, or something. I sense a growing narrowmindedness at RWD, and it is beginning to annoy me in my golden years.
That's sort of interesting. You are an expert in risk management, yet you can ignore the 50% failure rate in marriages. It appears that your 'moral views' is allowing you to ignore the 50% risk factor that you would normally be considering in your risk management training and experience.
Somehow that does not square when applying simple logic. I doubt anyone has any issue with whatever you choose for yourself (prenup or no-prenuup). Why are you so furious with people that have a different set of views?
I am not trying to give you a hard time. We might even be in agreement, however your hostility to the topic makes it difficult to explore your convictions.
I gave you a very simple scenario to respond to and hoped to receive a simple answer without all the moral additions.
If I read your response correctly, we might be in agreement.
You stated that of course you would protect business interests and inheritance that was received prior to marriage.
Loosly translated, this means that you would protect these pre-marital assets from a divorce.
If this is the case, we are in agreement!
You comments that appear to be directed about wealth accumulated after marriage belong to both of you. We also agree on that. It is already covered by laws in the community property states and a prenup would be unnecessary to address these assets.
I understand your moral position that marriage is supposed to be built on love and we should enter into it without any consideration of it failing. This is the common way most people (particularly young) enter into their first marriage (including mine). Both parties enter into the marriage with rose colored glasses and have no thoughts of failure. Neither party has any thoughts of a divorce or that either party could become someone that would rather destroy the families community property rather than see the other spouse receive the 50/50 split that he/she is entitled to in a divorce.
I think most people enter into their first marriage with exactly the same beliefs and attitude you have. It is only after a hostile divorce that they look back and realize how much of their life's labor went down the drain to lawyers. You apparently do not have an appreciation for the fact that one of the parties (husband or wife) can become very hostile in a divorce and can completely destroy the family assets that both have earned over the years. Those rose colored glasses you each wore when entering the marriage have vanished in a hostile divorce. If you have not been in this position it is understandable that you do not understand why couples take a more businesslike approach to protect any pre-marital assets they own in a subsequent marriage.
If I read your response correctly, you would protect any business, inheritance, and significant assets you owned prior to entering a marriage. That we agree on.
Wealth accumulated during the marriage are automatically equally owned by both parties, so a prenup is superfluous for this, as they will be shared 50/50. I don't think we have any disagreement on this issue either.
so you just spent a week with her in istanbul?...
but you're going to wait until you get home to break up with her via phone/skype/sms?
So for those of you who think I should continue on because there are RW who would be different, where do I start? What suggestions do you have?
I tried rationalizing it away.
calmissle
You are wrong on most fronts. I have no hostility toward the topic or prenups. I am a live and let live A-type personna. Whatever floats your boat is my approach. I make no moral judgments to those that desire prenups. I do however despise anyone's condescending remarks toward someone else's perceived lack of "substantial assets". ML's remarks were OTT. The idea that my or Ade's head is floating in the air full of fantasies because we are willing to put it on the line for the woman we love and choose to marry is a crock of shit. The idea that we couldn't comprehend the need for a prenup is bullshit and I do call bullshit where I see it.
I have been through a bitter divorce and I am all too familiar with it. You don't have to own pounds of gold bullion to feel the pain of a bitter divorce. Yes I entered my second marriage the same way I did the first and if I have a third, I'll do it the same way. All of my personal wealth is there for the taking. Whatever gets adjudicated I can live with, because quite frankly, it is just money and just stuff. Should my wife leave me broke and penniless, it won't be the first time I've been broke. I refuse to put money and possessions above my marriage. I would hope my choice for a wife felt the same way. If not, c'est la vie.
I'm not counting 50/50. We came together as one. What's mine is hers and vice-versa. Back to my point, my advice is, if you can't do this with your woman, don't marry her. It is that simple IMHO
[size=78%]I now believe that her ex-husband (who is still begging for her to let him back) waited on her hand and foot, lost himself in the process and eventually lost until he was broke. She strikes me as a ‘man eater.” [/size]
First, Juan in a million is NOT carved in stone, and you should know that.
Also, I have no clue where you got that 25% probability.American Cancer Society. Juan in four for males and juan in five for females of dying from cancer. [I like your Juan]. I recall the Juan in a million was the guideline for dying from cancer and not developing cancer. An ostomy appliance or a mastectomy is not death, biologically speaking.
Let me share with you something. The risk that a man will develop bladder cancer
during his lifetime is 3.81%. This means this person has a chance of Juan
in 26 of developing bladder cancer (100/3.81= 26). I can understand maybe why
you chose this number.
Hint: I do that:) I gathered. Noble profession. One of my best friends was professor of toxicology at Stockholm University and member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. Met him when I was with the WHO. He did much consulting on both sides and still dabbles some. Enjoyable Renaissance man, yet he ridiculed himself, saying there is something weird about people who make poison their life's profession. ;)
There are people who are dedicated to follow trends and anticipate the odds.
Those are risk assessors. Then there are those who will take the information
from the risk assessors to calculate the chances of the effect of
uncertainty on objectives. In my business we call that a causal effect.
Others may call it failure.
Is that clear for you now?
I know a cure for being annoyed by certain events: move somewhere else.
There is nothing wrong, he needed time to think about a decision. He is just given us his thinking. Let him to do the final move.
Paulie, my bet is that she will not let you go like this.
Good guys who are doing 20 grands for a living per month, proposing marriage, 5000 per month are not arriving by whole plane in Istanbul.
She knows that her time will be over soon, and if some humility didn't settle her, some wisdom yet let me say that i have seen beautiful women with all the brilliant life after their forties almost cleaning the toilets around fifties because of insane expectation.
A lot of women by being fed by all attention bring by men become quickly an island in perdition when this attention becomes rare.
That is quite the interesting and radical change in perspective.
so you just spent a week with her in istanbul?...
but you're going to wait until you get home to break up with her via phone/skype/sms?
You are right - when the attention becomes less and less, she might gain a notion that SHE is the problem.
Shall I fly back to Istanbul or fly her to California? Do you have any spare airline miles for a ticket?
Look this isn't easy. I tried six ways to Sunday to keep this going. I gave her the benefit of the doubt more times than I should have.
Why would I know it when few people do? Yes it is a guideline; however, at the negotiation table I recall the Feds rarely settling for less protection (many moons ago).
American Cancer Society. Juan in four for males and juan in five for females of dying from cancer. [I like your Juan]. I recall the Juan in a million was the guideline for dying from cancer and not developing cancer. An ostomy appliance or a mastectomy is not death, biologically speaking.
Source: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer) (which reports your 3.81% bladder cancer incidence for males)
But now you know and this is not the reason.
:) I gathered. Noble profession. One of my best friends was professor of toxicology at Stockholm University and member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. Met him when I was with the WHO. He did much consulting on both sides and still dabbles some. Enjoyable Renaissance man, yet he ridiculed himself, saying there is something weird about people who make poison their life's profession. ;)
Already knew that. And I am not sure that the heart is the best instrument for predicting any deviation from the median.
To continue your explanation of those who study risk, there are those who use scientific information such as consequences of failure and probabilities to make risk management decisions. You called them politicians. I call them "me."
Or I could increase my exposure to a certain toxic organic, namely ethanol. ;D
Have a good day Muzh, and continue to protect us from toxic exposures.
That's sort of interesting. You are an expert in risk management, yet you can ignore the 50% failure rate in marriages. It appears that your 'moral views' is allowing you to ignore the 50% risk factor that you would normally be considering in your risk management training and experience.
Somehow that does not square when applying simple logic. I doubt anyone has any issue with whatever you choose for yourself (prenup or no-prenuup). Why are you so furious with people that have a different set of views?
Yes Misha it is. I finally was able to separate myself from the emotional 'ether' I was in. Ms. Istanbul is a charming and alluring lady. She will pull you in and get you to do what she wants in a very matter of fact way.There is one rule you need to know : it is unlikely that a women don't have minimum two irons in the fire in fact. The talent they have is to let you believe that you are the only one.
While I was there, her ex-husband must have called/texted her at lease a dozen times. She hasn't told this guy she's moved onto another life. What kind of woman does that?
:ROFL:
Sadly, I doubt it. We have a friend in her mid-fifites who has a similar mindset, she is looking for a millionaire to pay all her bills, wine her, dine her, entertain her and take her on exotic vacations, and she does not understand that the odds of her finding it are quite remote. The closest she came was a Nigerian scammer who told her that he had three houses in London and would pay for her to travel to meet him...
While I was there, her ex-husband must have called/texted her at lease a dozen times. She hasn't told this guy she's moved onto another life. What kind of woman does that?
+1
Not exactly honorable. I was more honorable and that was a mistake because she never went away.
I suggest Paulie write her a short letter and then vaporize. He left hints. She will not be surprised. Angry? Of course, especially this one.
Yes Misha it is. I finally was able to separate myself from the emotional 'ether' I was in. Ms. Istanbul is a charming and alluring lady. She will pull you in and get you to do what she wants in a very matter of fact way.
While I was there, her ex-husband must have called/texted her at lease a dozen times. She hasn't told this guy she's moved onto another life. What kind of woman does that?
Not exactly honorable. I was more honorable and that was a mistake because she never went away.
I suggest Paulie write her a short letter and then vaporize. He left hints. She will not be surprised. Angry? Of course, especially this one.
Or she wanted you to believe that, in the belief it would fuel your desire for her.
Or she wanted you to believe that, in the belief it would fuel your desire for her.
In your shoes, I'd send her a bouquet of flowers, and, in conjunction therewith, an email telling her she is wonderful, but you do not think you are her other half, and you wish her the best for the future. Don't answer her emails, accept her skype calls, or any other form of contact. Move on.
Calmissile,
I already asked you in this thread, but don't think you;ve replied: Are you going to have a prenup with your fiancee?
Shall I fly back to Istanbul or fly her to California? Do you have any spare airline miles for a ticket?
She does not want our relationship poisoned by a bunch of angry, bitter, people
that are insignificant to us.
Time to man up. With RW it is best to vaporize so that they get the message and stay out of your life. Have her come to California? No fooking way!
You made a well deliberated decision to terminate something even though you still felt some emotional attachment. The decision is solid. So don't leave the door open.
There is a good reason why one calls something off. You know absolutely that this woman is not good for you. I am not saying to burn the bridges, but do close the door, then lock it and throw the key away.
So puff up your scrotum and write her a short letter saying goodbye. That's it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that this woman is not good and that she will only become worse if you were to marry. Enjoy your life. That means to forget about her. Never answer her emails. Never, never, never, unless your doctor says unsafe roller coasters are good for you.
Sadly, I doubt it. We have a friend in her mid-fifites who has a similar mindset, she is looking for a millionaire to pay all her bills, wine her, dine her, entertain her and take her on exotic vacations, and she does not understand that the odds of her finding it are quite remote. The closest she came was a Nigerian scammer who told her that he had three houses in London and would pay for her to travel to meet him...
Time to man up. With RW it is best to vaporize so that they get the message and stay out of your life. Have her come to California? No fooking way! I was only joking.
You made a well deliberated decision to terminate something even though you still felt some emotional attachment. The decision is solid. So don't leave the door open. Exactly!
There is a good reason why one calls something off. You know absolutely that this woman is not good for you. I am not saying to burn the bridges, but do close the door, then lock it and throw the key away.
So puff up your scrotum and write her a short letter saying goodbye. That's it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that this woman is not good and that she will only become worse if you were to marry. Enjoy your life. That means to forget about her. Never answer her emails. Never, never, never, unless your doctor says unsafe roller coasters are good for you.
Pit,
My fiance has been reading this forum as well as the whining RW forum for months. Her attitude appears to be similar to Tulip's. She does not want our relationship poisoned by a bunch of angry, bitter, people that are insignificant to us.
Since I love and respect her, I will comply with her request. We only share personal information with trusted friends and members off-lline. It does not take long for someone to realize this is the safest route for couples to take.
No offense intended, but, to be frank, if she thinks a bunch of strangers online, who she likely will never meet, can poison your relationship, you don't really have a relationship.
If you both believe a prenup is a way to go, and you have been defending this route as a sensible option for FSUW-AM marriages, I do not see anything too personal in disclosing whether you are going this route or not. I believe every participant in this thread has stated if they have/will have a prenup or not, and this generally coincides with their position.
To be fully open - I do not have prenup, the question has never been raised by me or my husband.
That's very nice, I hope you two live happily ever after.
Now that's a silly notion! For a woman that has not yet experienced being in the US they are susceptible to the crazy stories that are propagated such as all American men are bad and abuse their wives, throw them out penniless, sell babies, harvest organs, etc. and on and on.I don't think there is a risk, and the advantage of RW forums is women explaining how things "work", stages of culture shock, even where to shop, etc.
You would not believe how many women asked these questions during initial contacts.
I am convinced it would not matter in our case, but why complicate matters or take the risk. It was her request, not mine. I would much rather focus on the love we have for each other than have to defend it among the naysayers and negative thinkers.
Or she wanted you to believe that, in the belief it would fuel your desire for her, Yes i have already think so.
Sending a bouquet is more a feminine thinking, but i would not reward her behavior by sending her a bouquet. I would just tell her" how i have loved her but how i felt disrespected in my generosity, and this why my heart is broken, i have so much to give, but you are just focusing on what is given". I would tell her something like that, she understands or not ... it is not his problem after the fact.
It is sad when women think there is a 'night in shining armor' with a bank account waiting for her. What you describe is what Ms. Istanbul is seeking. She said she is tired of working and wants someone to give her an easy life. She almost came close. My last wife had it 'easier' in that she didn't have to work, but she did take care of our young son. She had the ability to do whatever she wanted. I did not mind. Ms. Istanbul could have had this too, to an extent. But her greed and lust for $100K-$150K pushed me away. The negative behavior also pushed me away.
I don't mind wining and dining, I like a nice vacation once in awhile, I don't mind paying for things my wife needs. But in this case, we were not married and I was being asked to support a second household - hers.
I don't think there is a risk, and the advantage of RW forums is women explaining how things "work", stages of culture shock, even where to shop, etc.
I don't think you should defend yourself at all to naysayers, unless you enjoy the debate. :)
I'm not pro pre-nup by any stretch of the imagination but in Doug's case I'd say he needs the best that money can buy.
Funny that you mentioned that. When I was searching for a middle aged FSUW, I got the same response from many of them. At least they were honest with their intentions, if not a little naive about their chances. ;D
Thanks for the vote of confidence and the hidden message. You are such a nice person. ;D
Agree, and to not provide the ammunition (personal data) is the easiest way to avoid it.Personally, I am not particularly interested in trip reports, but I think if there is a discussion of the red flags, you will get good advice from those who are intimately familiar with the culture.
Trip reports are one of the most valuable resourses newbies claim to enjoy. Why do you think there are so few trip reports written.................... because they have read the forum and do not want their lives and decisions ripped apart by those that are inclined to do so.
1. Very relieved that you came to rational decision to end it. I was really worried about you.
2. It is quite scary to think that a woman (or man) can actually be such a good actor that a person can think she/he loves him/her. We are all a million miles from seeing the two of you together, but I have a strong feeling that it was acting on her part.
3. Send a short note telling of the end . . . and do not answer or even look at reply messages she may send you. In your state of mind, it is possible you could be easily sucked back into the maelstrom.
4. Read 'Pursuing FSUW 101' in the Starting Out section . . . and get back on the horse.
5. I wish you the very best.
Not planning on failing are you?
Let us know how the pre-nip holds up in court.
While I was there, her ex-husband must have called/texted her at lease a dozen times. She hasn't told this guy she's moved onto another life. What kind of woman does that?
What suggestions do you have?
I suggest you don't shower people with money particularly if they say you should. Develop friendship. Whatever women you will meet, they are not YOUR women.
I am not sure I can explain it well in English. I sensed a hint of possessive attitude in your posts, but I could be wrong of course. Like you are trying to win people over with money. This is just a feeling, intuition if you wish. What you do may be insulting to people that you want to attract, and draw out those who you shouldn't associate yourself with. This is not to offend you, I am just being honest. You did ask for advice though.
Please explain further your comment "they are not YOUR women."
I am unsure if she will give me up or not. She now knows I am not going along with her plan and her bad behavior.
No, most of my clients are already married. But if a client of wealth is going into a second marriage, yes, I do advise them to get prenups, and if a client asked if it was a good idea from a legal perspective, I would say yes.
+1
I was under the impression you were against prenups because you agreed with people who called it evil and for people in love with their money more than their spouse.
Although the forum members here aren't paying customers or real life friends and family, you should have give out this quality advice earlier. Although you state the advice is from a legal perspective, it's still good advice at a minimum because the legal system can make it unfair for one party or destroy both parties financially.
I've spoken with attorneys and a spiritual leader about this topic before and they all agree a prenup is a good thing. Considering they deal with a lot of people's problems and pain, I believe them.
If a man or woman won the lottery or became the next Donald Trump, he/she will be a target for insincere people. A prenup may help them ensure their partner is marrying for love and will get nothing more than a fair split in assets if things don't work out.
Some people own businesses and if an ugly divorce happens, the business dissolves and people lose their jobs. A prenup can help prevent that since more lives are involved than just two.
What does prenup mean? Prenuptial AGREEMENT. Most normal people talk and have agreements before marriage. They talk about what they own and their responsibilities in marriage and who assumes those responsibilities. My wife told me she loves me for me and doesn't need anything I owned and earned before marriage. I did not put her words in writing in a prenup but I don't blame others for doing so or question their love for their spouse.
In essence most of us do a prenup written or verbal. Of course there are people out there that don't talk about critical things before marriage but they will have to sort it all out during and after marriage if it comes to that point.
Paulie, Fashionista might be saying (correct me if I am wrong) the kind of fish that you catch can be directly attributed to the bait that you use.
I didn't understand it either))
I suggest you don't shower people with money particularly if they say you should. Develop friendship. Whatever women you will meet, they are not YOUR women.
Sending a bouquet is more a feminine thinking, but i would not reward her behavior by sending her a bouquet. I would just tell her" ......
1. I am very relieved that you came to a rational decision to end it. I was really worried about you.
So..., he's not an idiot anymore, eh? ::)
I'm surprised you would agree with the absolute misrepresentation of what I have posted, Patagonie.Hi Boethius, i have missed the point, probably you were making a reference to "It is all intertwined. As both jason and Faux Pas posted, it is all just stuff. I could not fathom protecting my "stuff" from someone to whom I have entrusted my soul." i suppose (or may you elaborate it please )?
As for not marrying for love, that happens only when you do not know who you are marrying, or it's not important to you because you are marrying a body, not a soul.
I do however despise anyone's condescending remarks toward someone else's perceived lack of "substantial assets". ML's remarks were OTT.
Not anymore OTT/condescending then people trying to tell others they have trust issues if they think prenups are not bad.
my impression has always been (and still is) that prenups are for very wealthy men (or women). people worth tens or hundreds of $millions.
Hi Boethius, i have missed the point, probably you were making a reference to "It is all intertwined. As both jason and Faux Pas posted, it is all just stuff. I could not fathom protecting my "stuff" from someone to whom I have entrusted my soul." i suppose (or may you elaborate it please )?
In case that it i would say that my position has not changed :
"The problem of trust and fairness is two totally differents things and should be strictly evaluated apart. It shouldn't be linked at any time."
In the decision given by the judge trust had never been existing as a factor of any sort.
Situation is only judged on health and age of spouses, time under mariage, type of mariage (prenup or not if you prefer), stuff (include here all about money), number of childrens, estimate future pensions of each, debt or mortages.
ONLY that, no sentiment,
The problem is that you can trust what you want the day of the divorce others people with a huge power are involved and they ABSOLUTELY have no compassion, no sentiment, no trust, no misery (fortunately, if judges want to give a fair decision). They only decide on objectives parameters i have described above (they try because it is not easy in fact).
We have here two camps, very similars to believers and non believers. Why the believers refuse to consider the almost 50% of failure ?
I consider for the reasons i have explained (see one of my previous post) that the normal mariage (shared or shared but previous assets or new inheritance excluded) is obsolete due to all the new laws, the trend given by cases law, and a miscealleneous reasons, which are given a clear advantage to women especially when significant amount of money are involved compare to what she would have had in case of single.
It is to men to help themselves and stop to sign these default contracts, especially when they are above the average folk (but even average must do it also).
After everybody is free to do what he wants, connected with his convictions, like religion.
But don't bring the question of trust, soul, because damages suffered by single divorced men are not correctly assessed.
I believe you overstate the powers of the courts, and damages suffered by men. In most North American jurisdictions, any property a man brings into a marriage is his when he leaves.
That is why appellate courts exist.
The man had inherited a small fortune before marriage. He never co-mingled this money and in fact never touched it (spent it) at all as he and his wife both had good incomes from the very beginning of their marriage.
He was intending to set up trusts, etc., so he could pass it on to future grandchildren and do some generation skipping with regard to taxes, but never got around to it.
At divorce proceedings, the judge acknowledged that was separate property of the man but, in view of this large sum . . .
He gave about 90% of the wealth accumulated during the marriage to the wife.
That is why appellate courts exist.
The same jackasses exist in the appelate courts and the supreme courts. It's simply a ladder they climb to get there. They take their prejudices with them. Where did the revisionists come from? Someone that could not read the original documents (law)? ;D
BTW few people have the funds to appeal court rulings and verdicts. Appellate lawyers are extremely expensive. I know this from personal experience.
You are right the % of divorce is worse after the second or third marriage.
I think most of us are a little to old to believe in fairness. However, I do not believe a relationship can endure over time without trust. Furthermore, as I noted, I have never, ever, seen a couple with a prenup who did not, ultimately, divorce.
The 50% figure for divorce is misleading. It is calculated by taking the total number of marriages, and the total number of divorces, recorded in a country in a year. But it does not account for second or third marriages, which have a higher divorce rate than do first marriages, nor common law relationships.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?_r=0)
I believe you overstate the powers of the courts, and damages suffered by men. In most North American jurisdictions, any property a man brings into a marriage is his when he leaves. What is not, pursuant to legislation, is the increase in value of that property. There is little "screwing" of men in division of assets, generally. Where men are often treated unfairly is when children are involved. Typically, a man is the higher income earner, so he will pay a large amount of maintenance for the children. He will often lose his home to his wife and children, and, if his wife was at home, he often will pay alimony to her until she can retrain to work, often, even longer. Most of that would be fine, however, often, men's custody rights have been blatantly disregarded by women, in the past, with no consequences to mothers for defying court orders. That is beginning to change.
Today, I asked my better half what he thinks about prenuptial agreements. He said he does not care how others choose to live their lives, but to him, it turns a marriage into a business transaction. It commodifies something that is sacred.
I have to say, I never looked at it this way, but that is, I think, an accurate analysis. In fact, some prenups include provisions for a woman's weight, how often the couple will have sex (at a minimum), what happens if the man does not provide sufficient income for vacations, if he is not earning $X annually, and so on. Why not just turn the whole exercise into one of contractual obligation, based on each party's expectation going into a marriage, with the same types of consequences for breaches (pecuniary damages)? It would make life a lot easier than having to negotiate problems and eventually giving up, would it not?
You are right the % of divorce is worse after the second or third marriage.
Tell me what is fair ?
Men's properties (prior marriage) give a substantial amout of money durint the marriage shared by both : ok no problem with that.
The increase of this properties has to be shared ? Why ? Why a guy who have 50000$ in stocks or a property for 200000 $ prior the marriage, if the day of the divorce all have increased of 50% why he has to shared 25 % of the net value ? And curiously if those assets decrease of 50% it has no consequence on what he has to pay ? Tell me in which manner the spouse is interacting which such assets ?
You believe that what was owned previous the marriage is protected. THis is the theory : in practice the reality is different because not only the net value of his previous assets are halved and it happens also and more often than you think that those assets are embedded in the community.
You notice yourself that the injustice is large when childrens are involved.
I don't know about the compenstory allowance in USA but her 15 % of male people pay one, which means that barely any guys earning above 3000 $ will have to pay one in case of divorce. So you have to add this also to the what the woman gets (in 97%).
for me this is shit : it only shows the failure of the actual system because the CONTRACTUALS OBLIGATIONS are mainly filled by MEN, and the women obligations are blank, the main parameters of the contract are not how many sex you should have, but who works, and how many childrens. There is nothing of this in the basic contract.
You continue to keep this same emotionnal tension aroung something which has no relation with trust or sacred.
It is like :
You don't wear your belt in a car or a helmet on a motorcycle but do know you that in the next 20 years you have 40% of chance to have a crash, and after the first crash your chances are 60% ?
What do you think of that ? Answer of some here :
You should believe in God and trust him.
What God has to do with crashes ?
If you believe in God nothing will happen to you, if you don't believe in him you will have a crash.
But do you know that believers suffer statistically of the same proportion of crash ?
Answer : none
Would you advice your son to drive or ride without belt or helmet ?
Answer : none.
What chance do you think a person unhappy with the ruling at divorce trial is going to have for an appeal? Appellate court don't have time to listen to everybody and they give precedence to those who's lives could be lost in prison for life.
Also if a person by chance gets heard by appellate court and wins an appeal, that is no reason to celebrate. The appellate court will state why they thought the judge at divorce trial is wrong and send the case right back to the same judge who made the erroneous ruling to make modifications. The same judge who screwed a person over and now embarrassed by higher level judges, may make only slight adjustments to his/her previous decision.
This is a poor analogy, because it is based primarily on physical laws. A successful marriage is not based on the physical, but on spiritual and emotional work and compatibility. I can't put in the emotional work to ensure the driver in the next car will always pay attention at the wheel. I can work on my relationship, though, to ensure that I don't need to give up half my "stuff", if that is what is important to me.
Boe, I mentioned it before. It is a matter of That bitch ain't getting any of my money.
Why do you speak about bitch Muzh ? May you explain ?
Why do you speak about bitch Muzh ? May you explain ?
author=Boethius
I don't think that this is an aberration, notarius and forums report many cases like this.That injustice, though, is not usually about money. It is about custody rights.me :You notice yourself that the injustice is large when childrens are involved."
THe injustice is more larger : explain me why, in case or alterned custody, the grid which used by court mentions that the man has to pay an alimony to the woman ?Explain me why anytime a woman can ask a DNA investigation to force any man to pay an alimony for a child from him?
But explain me why a man cannot ask a DNA investigation for a children he is not supposed to get from his spouse ? (betwen 5 and 8 % of childrens don't come from the official father).
Explain me why more than half rapes and more than 70 % or child abuse (the man is always put in police custody) are just blabla but the woman is almost never prosecuted for such lies ?
Pat, you're asking a male feminist here. The man is always wrong and the women are always victims. Ignoring is the best use of your time.
Pat, you're asking a male feminist here. The man is always wrong and the women are always victims. Ignoring is the best use of your time.
+1
Hey Doug, why don't you relay your experiences here with your first fiance to the "real men" on how to treat a woman?
Obviously, all throughout modern history men has been exploited by evil bitches who all they do is incarcerate these poor defenseless men when the come home after an 18 hour work day and force them to cook and clean the house for the evil bitch.
I don't know what to think about you. Either you hate women or you are scared of them, or both.
It seems to be that you don't read what i write.No, I read it. I don't necessarily agree.
The increase of this properties has to be shared ? Why ? Why a guy who haveThey were assets which increased in value during a partnership. If they decrease that normally, at least in Canada, is also taken into account.
50000$ in stocks or a property for 200000 $ prior the marriage, if the day
of the divorce all have increased of 50% why he has to shared 25 % of the
net value ? And curiously if those assets decrease of 50% it has no consequence
on what he has to pay ? Tell me in which manner the spouse is interacting which
such assets ?
I don't think that this is an aberration, notariusYes, but that injustice is not about money. It is about a father's right to see his children without the mother interfering, or trying to poison her children against the father.
and forums report many cases like this.That injustice, though, is not usually
about money. It is about custody rights.me :You notice yourself that the
injustice is large when childrens are involved."
THe injustice is more larger : explain me why, in case or alterned custody, theI assume in most of those cases, what the woman is receiving is child support, not a division of assets. Shouldn't men be obligated to look after their children?
grid which used by court mentions that the man has to pay an alimony to the
woman ?Explain me why anytime a woman can ask a DNA investigation to force any
man to pay an alimony for a child from him?
But explain me why a man cannot ask a DNA investigation for a children he is not supposed to get from his spouse ? (betwen 5 and 8 % of childrens don't come from the official father).Because in the case of a spouses, the spouse is presumed to be the father. Furthermore, he stands in loco parentis, meaning, he may not be the biological father, but he is the father the children have known. BTW, I disdain men who stand as fathers to stepchildren, or even to children who are not biologically theirs conceived in marriage, then drop them to move on to the next better deal when the marriage goes south. These are is not, IMHO, the actions of a real man, and it says a lot about his character (or rather, lack thereof). It is one of the reasons I think mothers need to look long and hard before remarrying. I used to think they should not marry at all, but I/O's example changed my mind. Of course, most men are not I/O. :)
Explain me why more than half rapes and more than 70 % or child abuseIn North America, women are prosecuted for reporting false rape claims. It is not even close to 70%, it is so miniscule that it can only be described as an aberration. Keep in mind, an acquittal does not necessarily mean a rape did not occur. It just means there is not sufficient evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict. As for child abuse claims, women are "punished" in divorce cases for such reports, if false. There are even cases of mothers jailed for defying court orders, and losing primary custody of the children. These are known as "alienation" cases in Canada. I know similar cases have been reported in some U.S. jurisdictions, but it more of a mixed bag in the U.S.
(the man is always put in police custody) are just blabla but the woman is
almost never prosecuted for such lies ?
This has any relationship with childrens, it is about the difference in style life before and after the divorce. Explain me why 97 % of 15% of men pay a compensatory alimony whereas the difference in earning between men and women is less than 10% ? A law of last 2004 has modified hugely the landscape in favor of such compenstory alimony.
The marriage is sacred TILL the divorce, we speak here about DIVORCE, not about the time when all is fine.AGAIN NO ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION:
You don't wear your belt in a car or a helmet on a
motorcycle but do know you that in the next 20 years you have 40% of chance to
have a crash, and after the first crash your chances are 60% ?
What do you think of that ? Answer of some here :You should believe in God and
trust him.
What God has to do with crashes ?
If you believe in God
nothing will happen to you, if you don't believe in him you will have a
crash.
But do you know that believers suffer statistically of the same
proportion of crash ?
Answer : "i am not affected because i have the power to
let it not happen by my emotionnal work"
Would you advice your son to
drive or ride without belt or helmet ?
Answer : Not yet answered.
Hmm... I must have touched on a nerve. I am also not the person using derogatory terms to describe women, yet, I am accused of hating them. Please show some respect and stop using such words.
Forgive everything. Carry no grudges. Remember each day, how happy you were on your wedding day. If you do these things, you will never need a prenup. :)
The post, in context, was not disrespectful. Far worse has been directed at posters here, often with little objection.the post is disrespectful, because for who defend a position of a protected contract it insinues that we (men) consider our girlfriends or wife as bitches. Which is disrespectful for them and for us.
Boy, you guys have it tough in France.Muzh i think that you don't really read my posts, twice i have explained that this difference, searchers cannot find any explanation for a difference of 9 %. To say it in an other manner they don't find explanation at the end to explain a 9 % of difference between men and women (same work duration, same degree, same skills ....).
If you are from "LivefromUkraine" school of thought where men are always the victims and the women are vicious bitches, then there is nothing to explain.
Now, let me ask you a question. Does the man (in France) makes less money that the woman doing the same job. Is the man a stay-at-home individual while his wife goes to work? Are the economies equal for men and women IN GENERAL?
the post is disrespectful, because for who defend a position of a protected contract it insinues that we (men) consider our girlfriends or wife as bitches. Which is disrespectful for them and for us.
+1
You must live in Fantasy Island. De Plane De Plane
You have the money, you can go back to court. Just find a better lawyer. Simple.
[color=blackKnow the heart and soul of the person you are marrying. Forgive everything. Carry no grudges. Remember, each day, how happy you were on your wedding day. If you do these things, you will never need a prenup. :) [/color]
If you worked so hard as to not being able to contribute in any way to the housework and I assume to taking care of your daughter, how were you going to take care of your child 50% of the time? Just curious, what was the plan?
You might ask, why did I not do the housework, cooking, and cleaning myself? Because I was working 90 hrs/week in our business which was necessary at the time for it's survival.
From my observation, and having had discussions with both many divorce lawyers and divorced women, in the absence of mental illness, a woman usually seeks divorce when she just gets tired of putting up with her husband's cr@p and believes she has done everything to salvage her marriage.
If you worked so hard as to not being able to contribute in any way to the housework and I assume to taking care of your daughter, how were you going to take care of your child 50% of the time? Just curious, what was the plan?
In other words, nearly every woman who wants a divorce is in the right and her husband is in the wrong. I'm happy you have finally made yourself clear.
No offense to you, but your wife did not automatically turn into a feminist who wanted to destroy you. From my observation, and having had discussions with both many divorce lawyers and divorced women, in the absence of mental illness, a woman usually seeks divorce when she just gets tired of putting up with her husband's cr@p and believes she has done everything to salvage her marriage. It is also my observation that once that decision is made, a woman rarely changes her mind. Some put up with it until the kids are grown.
Well, no offense but the examples you have given have nothing to do with my ex wife's decision to get a divorce. Since you are inferring something that you have no personal knowledge about, I will help you out.
She worked in an office of over 20 mostly single, feminist women. I know this from conversations with them as well as comments from my wife before the divorce. She was subjected to a constant barrage of feminist speak ( you don't need a man for anything, men are evil, you should be strong and independent, etc.). We often went to office parties as well as saw them when out dancing together. They are the same women that would sleep with any man for some kind of benefit. Even pretend to like someone to get free drinks and then wander away. I am sure you understand the kind of women I am talking about.
The company she worked for had grown over the years and the owners decided it was time to create a new position to oversee all the gals working in the office. The owners hired a MAN from Los Angeles that had a lot of experience with office workers to take over as manager. Not only did the shit hit the fan in our relationship, but the other women in the office were in an uproar. Bickering went on daily at her office. Since she was one of the more senior employees she thought she was 'entitled' to the position even though she had no experience in managing people.
It finally reached a point where she came home from work and announced that she is not cooking for any man, she furthermore is not washing any mans clothes, etc. She also let the housekeeping deteriorate to the point of it stinking from dirty dishes and rotting garbage for days on end.
You might ask, why did I not do the housework, cooking, and cleaning myself? Because I was working 90 hrs/week in our business which was necessary at the time for it's survival. In addition, she had made the environment so hostile it was better to back away from it rather than take the abuse.
There were many other clues that the source of her problem was not me. Shortly after her 10th anniversary at work, she got fired for insubordination by the new manager. That's about the same time the shit hit the fan in the relationship. She was not going to be dominated by any man, at work or at home! I never had the time or inclination to dominate her. To me it was clearly something external that created the personality change.
You can continue to try and rationalize someone else's behavior to fit your agenda, but it often is meaningless.
Custody, unfortunately, is usually the issue where spouses tend to go for the jugular, to the detriment of the children, and it is either a way to "get back" at the spouse,
Yes and I expect that you would rationalize and defend the woman's point of view even in those cases.
it is odd, is it not, that almost every man here who is divorced was not at fault? No sirree, it was always the fault, in its entirety, of his ex wife.
Reread what Larry quoted. From your observation and discussions with divorce women you come to the conclusion women divorce men because they are tired of the men's crap. Why do you believe what divorced women have to say and don't believe what divorced men have to say? Do you have ambitions to be a family court judge? You may fit right in.
Reread what Larry quoted. From your observation and discussions with divorce women you come to the conclusion women divorce men because they are tired of the men's crap. Why do you believe what divorced women have to say and don't believe what divorced men have to say? Do you have ambitions to be a family court judge? You may fit right in.
She didn't state that she sides with the women in the divorce proceedings, but rather that of those women who choose to initiate divorce, "tired of his crap" is a common theme
Bo, I concede! You have worn me down again. There is no sense trying to carry on an argument with a lawyer. Your word twisting and addressing only parts of a response is typical and clever.
I had not even noticed until this morning that you diverted the flow of my responses and addressed only your chosen parts to respond it. Good work. I congratulate you on your lawyering skills.
As far as your comment that your husband is not a submisive man.......... Ha Ha!
You could talk and argue him into submision just to keep from listening to you any more. ;D
As usual, I will give you the last word.
"tired of his crap" is a common theme (a common theme for the men as well, no? ..
Pat,
Don't expect the feminists (and men wearing panties) to make respectful comments.
Bo is an exception. Due to her intellect and lawyer training, she can send the same message without the disrespectful languge. She is very skilled at arguing, whatever side she chooses to take. ;D
...http://s1143.beta.photobucket.com/user/calmissile/library/Michelle (http://s1143.beta.photobucket.com/user/calmissile/library/Michelle)
Calmissile,
I looked at your pictures. They are beautiful. They show the love you gave that daughter of yours. You were given a great gift to be her father. You will be a positive influence in anyone's life.
It is a wonderful blessing to have a child. I hope that everyone gets such an experience.
Paul - you are thinking backwards here .Put No1 priority on making yourself happy . Arrange a pre-nup that is FAIR to her in the circumstance she could find herself in. In that process you are doing yourself a favor.
All the rest is just side issue BS( yes-- in capitals)
Sharing your life costs-- and not only money-- so get on with it!!
I came here 11 years ago with my younger son (he was 8 yo, now he is 19). Did I understand how insecure I was? Not right away, but soon I did realize. I totally depended on my husband. Yes, our marriage got through some "bumps", the bumps are still there)).
In case of divorce I was to live on my own, which is VERY hard in a foreign country (but possible). I have almost no access to my husband's assets - he was and still is very precautious what (when it) comes to his money (if it is the right word).
To be fair, in this situation he let me have my own account and didn't demand to contribute a lot in the "household". I had to live with my "eyes open"))).
At some point we shared our saving account, also, I started saving for the child. By now the boy (my son) is in USAF making decent money.
Am I still insecure? Yes, but not that bad.
Paulie:
1) Do not provide money to any woman or her family before a marriage; except for the money needed for wedding preparation and her transportation to be with you.
2) For a foreign woman; after marriage you will fully support her (but not her adult family) until she is able to add to the household support.
3) You should prepare a prenup that provides for support for her if the marriage terminates. This support should be of the amount that gets her through the time period necessary to be able to fully support herself. Check with Gator as he has experience with this. This prenup with specified support takes the place of such things as buying assets for the other party in their name only.
4) For any spouse that does not have a good paying job or adequate financial assets, the other spouse (or partner) should obtain a life insurance policy that will provide adequately for the surviving spouse. Or, alternatively, the same can be accomplished by will or legal documents that give the surviving spouse a certain amount or percentage of the IRA and/or other retirement funds and/or real estate and other holdings.
Think about all of these things logically when you go about searching for a new gal.
Hardly anyone (except in the movies) deliberately chooses a mate who they know to have a terminal disease.
The same should apply when you learn that the woman (man) has terminal financial problems.
As for #1 – I get this and honestly I made a mistake and went over the line with Ms. Istanbul having given her money for her personal needs and paying for her daughter’s trip to NYC and Los Angeles.
#2) I DO expect to support and want to support my beloved, but will not support her family. I am not the “Bank of Paulie.” I did think that Ms. Istanbul would have had the intelligence to understand that it is appropriate for her to help with household support at some point. We did talk about this and she did waiver back and forth, sometimes thinking that she ‘deserved to be taken care of.’
In the case of an RW, it is possible that I would be ordered by the court to pay temporary alimony while she searches for a job or considers a move back to her country.
There are no general rules that would fit all situations. RW have different personalities, levels of English proficiency and sense of security that require different approaches.
1. Premarital support. I would not provide money to a woman before marriage with one exception. If her English is limited and she agrees to quit her job to study English full time, then I would provide for her necessities so she could do that.
2. The family support. If you refuse to help her immediate family starting from the first day of your marriage, you can turn off many good women who helps their parents or children. For example, I lived with my mother before I married my husband. I was contributing to our common budget with her. Regardless of how much I was charmed by my then fiancee, I would not leave her to survive on her own so I could find my happiness here NOR would I be happy here knowing she was going through tough time there.
Any man who would dare to suggest me that I should forget about helping her until I work myself in his country would be told to take a hike.
I still don't see anything wrong with "premarital support".
1. Premarital support. I would not provide money to a woman before marriage with one exception. If her English is limited and she agrees to quit her job to study English full time, then I would provide for her necessities so she could do that.
Good point.How is it "good"? To not support your wife-to-be and support her mom?
.
Good news: In case of a short marriage, lets say up to 2 years, it is highly unlikely that you will pay ANY kind of alimony to your ex-RW wife. Courts will not care what she is going to eat and whether she has somewhere to go. So, unless you are willing to support her until she finds a job/returns home - she would be "left in the street", exactly what your Ms. Istanbul fears. You can check your state laws as in what the length of marriage should be for the courts to grant alimony. It will probably be at least 5 years or more. The laws are the same for domestic and international marriages alike. Ask me how I know - read too many sad "divorce stories" on the RW forum. All this talk about cobra RWs who marry poor AMs and then divorce and rob them in court is an exaggeration. In 99% of the cases it is the woman who leaves the marriage with bare ass ;)
For a minute, let's forget Ms. Istanbul and focus on someone else. What security is appropriate, if any, should I move an RW to the US? What kind of protection is the 'right thing to do?" If I married an American woman, and should we divorce, she would have skills where she could obtain a job. An RW does not have the ability to find work given language barriers, legal considerations, etc. Isn't this correct?
In the case of an RW, it is possible that I would be ordered by the court to pay temporary alimony while she searches for a job or considers a move back to her country.
OK, so a pre-nuptial is key here. Question is: What amount is appropriate in a divorce settlement? What would the courts do as they look at a RW who has nowhere to go? I am just curious if anyone addressed this issue or dealt with this in a divorce? (Not that I would want a divorce – been there, done that. But one never knows.)
In 99% of the cases it is the woman who leaves the marriage with bare ass ;)
How is it "good"? To not support your wife-to-be and support her mom?First the woman you meet was having a life by her own before you meet her. She was not starving.
I do understand the reasons of supporting "mom", but don't see why the man can't do it for his future wife?
I wrote it two hundred times: J. (my present husband), when we met the first time, asked "money" questions about how much I was making and how much it was to have a relatively decent living with 2 kids. He asked, I answered. I didn't ask for anything at all- never! He made his decision himself- actually provided my sons and me till we were here (and after))).
Why is it a no-no to send money to the woman whom you're going to marry (and then provide for her AND her mom)?
Again- in this regard my husband is a saint)))))
(Forgot to say- I spoke fluent English back then, so no "full time ELL"))))
What is compensatory alimony and how is it different from regular alimony? Are there both kinds in France and when are they granted?
I would like to know, do you have in America, USA (Doll do you live in USA ?) a compensatory alimony ?
Good news: In case of a short marriage, lets say up to 2 years, it is highly unlikely that you will pay ANY kind of alimony to your ex-RW wife. Courts will not care what she is going to eat and whether she has somewhere to go. So, unless you are willing to support her until she finds a job/returns home - she would be "left in the street", exactly what your Ms. Istanbul fears. You can check your state laws as in what the length of marriage should be for the courts to grant alimony. It will probably be at least 5 years or more. The laws are the same for domestic and international marriages alike. Ask me how I know - read too many sad "divorce stories" on the RW forum. All this talk about cobra RWs who marry poor AMs and then divorce and rob them in court is an exaggeration. In 99% of the cases it is the woman who leaves the marriage with bare ass ;)Addendum: Here is a quote from Wiki: looks like a marriage has to be 10 years or longer to talk about alimony in most cases:
Now, if you'd like to guarantee that you will help her out in case your short marriage desintegrates - write this out in a prenup. How much - it is between you and your conscience ;D
Good news: In case of a short marriage, lets say up to 2 years, it is highly unlikely that you will pay ANY kind of alimony to your ex-RW wife. Courts will not care what she is going to eat and whether she has somewhere to go.
If the kids are involved the story might be a bit different but not necessarily. However, if not and a marriage is short - no alimony, "normal" marriages or not.
Not true and the Wikipedia info you provided is pertaining to normal marriages. Judges have lots of discretion and if a RW is not employable, he will award alimony instead of throwing her and her kids on the street. Not good if the judge has future ambitions of becoming a politician. If in any case a woman is thrown on the street, most likely welfare and food stamps on taxpayers dollars have to take care of her. Why when the guy who sponsored the woman signed an affidavit of support?
Nothing is allowed for her to wear as she exits the courthouse??It's a Russian "figure of language" which means "nothing"
What is done with her clothes?? Perhaps given to women getting married in another area of the courthouse??
I would like to know, do you have in America, USA (Doll do you live in USA ?) a compensatory alimony ?I live in the USA. As for alimony, it is all "might"- very theoretically.
Addendum: Here is a quote from Wiki: looks like a marriage has to be 10 years or longer to talk about alimony in most cases:
"The determination of alimony varies greatly from country to country and from state to state within the U.S.[4] Some state statutes, including those of Texas, Montana, Kansas, Utah, Kentucky and Maine, give explicit guidelines to judges on the amount and/or duration of alimony. In Texas, Mississippi and Tennessee, for example, alimony is awarded only in cases of marriage or civil union of ten years or longer and the payments are limited to three years unless there are special, extenuating circumstances. Furthermore, the amount of spousal support is limited to the lesser of $2,500 per month or 40% of the payee's gross income.[20][21][22] In Delaware, spousal support is usually not awarded in marriages of less than 10 years.[20] In Kansas, alimony awards cannot exceed 121 months.[20] In Utah, the duration of alimony cannot exceed the length of the marriage.[20] In Maine, Mississippi, and Tennessee alimony is awarded in marriages or civil union of 10 to 20 years and the duration is half the length of the marriage barring extenuating circumstances.[20] Other states, including California, Nevada and New York, have relatively vague statutes which simply list the "factors" a judge should consider when determining alimony (see list of factors below).[20][23][24][25] In these states, the determination of duration and amount of alimony is left to the discretion of the family court judges who must consider case law in each state. In Mississippi, Texas and Tennessee, for example, there are 135 Appellate Cases in addition to 47 sections of State Statute that shape divorce law. As a result of these Appellate Cases, for example, Mississippi judges cannot order an end date to any alimony award. In 2012,Massachusetts signed into law comprehensive Alimony Reform.[26] This law sets limits on alimony and eliminates lifetime alimony.
In general, there are four types of alimony.[27]
Temporary Alimony: Support ordered when the parties are separated prior to divorce. Also called alimony pendente lite, which is Latin, meaning, "pending the suit".
Rehabilitative Alimony: Support given to a lesser-earning spouse for a period of time necessary to acquire work outside the home and become self-sufficient.
Permanent Alimony: Support paid to the lesser-earning spouse until the death of the payor, the death of the recipient, or the remarriage of the recipient.
Reimbursement Alimony: Support given as a reimbursement for expenses incurred by a spouse during the marriage (like educational expenses)."
If the kids are involved the story might be a bit different but not necessarily. However, if not and a marriage is short - no alimony, "normal" marriages or not.
Affidavits are rarely used and enforced. They "might" be, however if there is substantial welfare support for the woman withing the 10 (?) year of marriage, however the man will need to compensate the governmetn. For this, the US government will need to go for the man.
I don't know for sure how the system works, but there is probably not so much welfare support for a non-citizen, and in the cases we are talking about - these women will likely not be citizens.
Here is the general rule of thumb the first quote from Google. In my years of reading the divorce stories on RW forums - I don't remember alimony granted for a short-term marriage.
Length of Marriage:
If a marriage is relatively short and there are no children, the courts often refuse to award alimony. If there are children under school age, however, the courts often award alimony to the spouse who is given physical custody (http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/maritalproblems/p/child_custody.htm). Most courts feel that a child under school age is better served by having a full time parent at home.
FP, help from the government and alimony from husband are not the same things.
Pit, that's not really true. Ironically enough, I know a RW who is going through a divorce from an AM right now. I have been very surprised by the amount of State support she has received. Make no mistake, she does need it. She left an abusive husband and took her two kids. One of the kids were his and hers the other was hers. She has received housing, legal help, food stamps and other stipends. The hubby is as useful as tits on a bull, a real piece of work. It's still difficult for her but, she is getting help. Of course that is just one case and probably isn't like this in other states.Well, that's a totally different story - if it's an abuse story with kids involved, the amount of support is different than in case of a short marriage, without abuse or kids involved. States usually take care of the kids much better than able adults :)
Pit, that's not really true. Ironically enough, I know a RW who is going through a divorce from an AM right now. I have been very surprised by the amount of State support she has received. Make no mistake, she does need it. She left an abusive husband and took her two kids. One of the kids were his and hers the other was hers. She has received housing, legal help, food stamps and other stipends. The hubby is as useful as tits on a bull, a real piece of work. It's still difficult for her but, she is getting help. Of course that is just one case and probably isn't like this in other states.I wonder if an Affidavit of Support will be enforced in this case and the man will have to pay back. Also, is the Affidavit just for Federal government or State as well? If just federal - then I'm not surprised it is rarely enforced, since all this help mostly comes from the state.
Well, that's a totally different story - if it's an abuse story with kids involved, the amount of support is different than in case of a short marriage, without abuse or kids involved. States usually take care of the kids much better than able adults :)
Paulie doesn't strike me as a man looking to have more kids. Paulie fears that he will be ordered to pay alimony in case his marriage to an RW falls apart relatively soon. My point is, he shouldn't worry, it is very unlikely that he will have to pay anything. In this case, the risk is almost 100% on the RW
I am fully aware of that Doll ;D I never said they were nor did I compare them. But, there is "help" and women don't necessarily leave or tossed in the street "bare-assed" either.They are "tossed" by their husbands (thanks to the US Government they are not).
I wonder if an Affidavit of Support will be enforced in this case and the man will have to pay back. Also, is the Affidavit just for Federal government or State as well? If just federal - then I'm not surprised it is rarely enforced, since all this help mostly comes from the state.
They are "tossed" by their husbands (thanks to the US Government they are not).
But that's the thing, if Ms. Turkey had came and married Paulie, moved to the US and divorced inside of a couple of years without a Prenup. Even if she didn't contribute to wealth, she would still be due a settlement of some sort. Most US courts would IMHO view it that way. How much or what would be determined by the circumstances of the divorce. Without she was just an evil bitch from hell and it could be proven, she would get something in proportion to her contribution and the size of his wealth. That's really the brass tacks isn't it?I believe this would be exactly the opposite - she will not have any settlement or alimony, zip, nada. I've posted a link to US divorce laws. I haven't heard of a single case where it happened. Furthermore, if she is unable to prove "marriage in good faith" and get he permanent gc on her own upon divorce- she will become an illegal and be potentially deported from the US. This is sad but true - those first couple years of marriage before the permanent GC a RW is really 100% at the mercy of an AM husband. And in many cases it get exceptionally ugly.
I believe this would be exactly the opposite - she will not have any settlement or alimony, zip, nada. I've posted a link to US divorce laws. I haven't heard of a single case where it happened. Furthermore, if she is unable to prove "marriage in good faith" and get he permanent gc on her own upon divorce- she will become an illegal and be potentially deported from the US. This is sad but true - those first couple years of marriage before the permanent GC a RW is really 100% at the mercy of an AM husband. And in many cases it get exceptionally ugly.
If anybody has an example that proves your IMHO - I would love to hear it :D
If a marriage is relatively short and there are no children, the courts often refuse to award alimony.
3 years is not that short. Did you have a child with that woman in your 3 years of marriage? Actually, I remember you have 2 sons? And the custody is primarily with your ex? I would expect alimony granted together with child support in this case.
Here's an article below that talks about some of the issues your wikipedia article talked about. Judges factor in if a spouse has financial hardships, not employable, and if they're currently getting an education. In the end they are allowed to use discretion, their own, not the laws, to factor in alimony. Most RW in a short marriage will qualify for all the above and most likely get alimony even if the marriage lasts one day. I married a Ukrainian woman I met in the states. She had a work permit, green card, and spoke good English and had previous work experience but was also taking college classes. I paid 6 months alimony for a 3 year marriage. I'm not only assuming what a website says, I'm speaking from experience. If an FSU woman speaks zero English and has no work permit, she would be getting a generous amount of alimony till she's able to support herself on her own even if the affidavit of support doesn't come into play.
http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/financialissues/p/alimony2.htm (http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/financialissues/p/alimony2.htm)
Paulie should factor in alimony in a future prenup. It should cover all bases and be fair to his future wife to the point she would be happy to sign it. If he chooses to create the stereotypical prenup that the media wants up to believe is one sided, Paulie will learn his prenup will have less value than toilet paper.
Did you have a child with that woman in your 3 years of marriage?
I didn't know Billy was married to an immigrant before.
Most everyone in USA is married to an immigrant . . . if you trace back far enough.
I didn't know Billy was married to an immigrant before.
Yes but that issued is covered with child support. To get alimony my ex's attorneys only arguments were she doesn't speak good English although she did, she's an immigrant, studying in college, and not very employable.
Keep in mind, most articles pertaining to alimony that we are reading are geared toward Americans born and raised in America who have an easier time getting a job. Most laws are written in the same fashion. When an American man or woman marries a foreigner, it's different because the scales are tilted in favor of the American to move into financial independence easier than the foreigner so the judge will use his discretion more than the law to determine alimony
...It sounds hokey as I type it but the RW actually loved the guy, he wanted a maid and sex toy. She overstayed the tourist visa to be him. Sad story.
It totally matches my previous quote
Your previous quote gave people the impression alimony in a short term marriage is only given if their is children are involved. The link I provided mentions many factors involved in alimony. Children is not the only factor. A single RW in a short marriage with no kids, limited English, no work permit, and no green card, is not going to be thrown out onto the street.
Definitely. The article that I quoted points that when the children are very little and one of the parents gets primary custody, there is often alimony in addition to child support, even in case of a short marriage. It is benefitial for very small children to have a primary caregiver and a primary residence - hence support to the parent. I imagine that if the kids are older alimoty would be less common.
An order of child support payments is not always accompanied by an order of alimony.
I still don't see anything wrong with "premarital support".
Why not?
1) Do not provide money to any woman or her family before a marriage; except for the money needed for wedding preparation and her transportation to be with you.
However, in a short marriage without kids, there rarely is an order of alimony. period.
For some months I had no possibility to write anything here ( because of my work and... ), but I could read sometimes.
;) ). I'll be glad to help you guys :)
Furthermore, if she is unable to prove "marriage in good faith" and get he permanent gc on her own upon divorce- she will become an illegal and be potentially deported from the US. This is sad but true - those first couple years of marriage before the permanent GC a RW is really 100% at the mercy of an AM husband. And in many cases it get exceptionally ugly.
Question. Of those RW who divorce and do not earn enough income to support themselves, how many rely on government aid vs. their network of friends and their own sense of survival? A single woman without kids will not qualify for Section 8 housing, and even if she did I can not envision the pride of a RW agreeing to Section 8 housing.Not many, but it is not about pride- they just do not qualify for it.
Pitbull, how many RW are actually deported because marriages lasted less than two years?
I would imagine a good number stays anyway even if their status chages to illegal
Russian Bear - :welcome: we don't have many Russian men here.
I like your post :clapping: Please write here more :-*
Not many, but it is not about pride- they just do not qualify for it.
That's what a Ukrainian woman told us when she tried to apply for government assistance for her and her daughter after divorce.
Denied. :(
I wonder if an Affidavit of Support will be enforced in this case and the man will have to pay back. Also, is the Affidavit just for Federal government or State as well? If just federal - then I'm not surprised it is rarely enforced, since all this help mostly comes from the state.
How much income was she getting from her job or her ex? Around were I live there are apartment complexes dominated by Ukrainian people....
I know a case, of a very short marriage (months)
and the judge took the AOS in consideration when granting support to the RW.
no kids incvolved.
she also has suppirt from various state programs fort trainjng and job placemrnt, as wellss food/ shelters..and relocation t ther statwes..continuing a year or so later.
These things vary so much by state,
that there is no way to give one answer.
No family law attorney would attempt it, but forums always do :)
Almost every FSUW that I interacted with claimed that one of the top priorities for her future husband was that he had a sense of humor.Yet, not all women actually possess this sense, I would even state few. And they can often be offended at your jokes and even mark you as an idiot when they don’t understand your joke, even if you specially add that you are kidding.
I would mostly agree with Stirlitz on this.
On average it seems, women have much less sense of humor than men, and certainly much less tolerance for 'silliness.'
But still, there is some percentage of women (I would estimate around 30%) who enjoy humor just as much as men. And I would estimate maybe 15% who can even tell a few jokes. And maybe 10% who can and do enjoy a man who is 'silly' a bit of the time.
I have been lucky to find quite a few of those in the latter category.
She's currently living with her long time friend from the city they grew up in back in Russia. The friend is married to an AM. They don't know what to do with/for her at this time. She doesn't want to go back to Russia but she's utterly without any skills or credentials, etc...other than work retail.
Tough, tough deal. I can only imagine this will be tougher had she have to worry about a child, or two...
Hard to imagine that her friends AM doesn't know what to tell her to do. :cluebat:
She needs to talk to a divorce lawyer, she should be entitled to half of the marital property.
LOL :clapping:
Не понимаю как муж с двумя почками может говорить жене что не может купить шубу)
Thanks ML. I ma having a hard time because of the events in Istanbul. I think I finally realized what and who I was dealing with relative to the woman I talked about months ago.
I will be sharing my story here as I could use some help overcoming the pain and suffering I put myself through.
Best,
Paul
You went to meet the "guarantee" woman after all?
Well, if he did, you shouldn't be too surprised about that, FP. That's more of a 'rule' than an 'exception' in these hallways when it comes to women matters.
Nothing surprises me from the boards anymore. It's just that most men don't get as much advance notice of the impending doodoo bomb in a dumpster fire as Paulie did and jump right in anyway.
The pull of attraction, and love, is strong. Paulie still had doubts, and it was better to resolve those doubts, rather than think, for the rest of his life, "What if?"
I commend him for coming back to the forum to let us know, as many who fail, particularly after posters have warned them of pitfalls, just drop off. We'll have to wait for the story, but I am sure it will help others.
The pull of attraction, and love, is strong. Paulie still had doubts, and it was better to resolve those doubts, rather than think, for the rest of his life, "What if?"
I commend him for coming back to the forum to let us know, as many who fail, particularly after posters have warned them of pitfalls, just drop off. We'll have to wait for the story, but I am sure it will help others.
Not to worry - it will become water over the dam...I'm curious, is that considered an auspicious situation in the US :o?
Hi,
I know it's been a long time since I've been here. A lot has happened and now I wish to pick up where I left off.
It is almost 6 AM here in California and I just came back from Istanbul. Can't sleep, so I thought I would come here and send a note to say hello to everyone.
I need to pull my thoughts and emotions together, and then I would like to share with all of you where I've been regarding my original post. I am just in a tough moment right now, so I will come back in a day or two,
Best wishes,
Paulie,
Thanks for touching base. I read the first few pages and then skipped
ahead to your last post.
Udachi !
Bill
Sandro, I know that is probably not a home in the picture of the damn but if it were I think I would take a pass on it ::)It's a home and has been safe for a long number of years, the dam was proved to be structurally sound by the event - and RAF 617 Squadron has been otherwise engaged in the meantime :D:
Thanks ML. I ma having a hard time because of the events in Istanbul. I think I finally realized what and who I was dealing with relative to the woman I talked about months ago.
I will be sharing my story here as I could use some help overcoming the pain and suffering I put myself through.
Best,
Paul
Unfortunately it seems that the initial idea I had about this turned out correct.
Every once in a while I would like an unlikely story to turn out for the best, but it rarely happens.
Others, chime in here and tell the guy's name so that Paul can read his never ending threads.Wiz.
Paul, your words give me much anguish.
You are being foolish on a scale larger than imaginable.
There is absolutely no plausible reason for you to stay with or have anything to do with this woman.
Have you seen the movie "Blue Angel?" Watch it and get sick over what a woman can do to a good man.
Also, there was a Greek guy living in UK who carried on with a woman such as yours for several years. He kept promising on here that he was never giving her another chance, yet he did over and over again.
Others, chime in here and tell the guy's name so that Paul can read his never ending threads.
I pray for you Paul to come to your senses. There are tons of good women out there.
My starting point offered to give her $2K cash a month, lease her a new car, cover medical, car insurance, phone, food, etc. Essentially, she would not have any expenses. Perhaps $2K is not much, but it is a beginning. I would also, after a period of 3-6 months of getting adjusted, offer to help her establish her business here in the US. She DOES have the ability to make money with her talents as a gymnastic trainer.
She has a concern about housing, especially if we break up. So, I came up with a couple of ideas. - 1) She sells the two apartments she has in Ukraine. She could likely get between, $100-140K. I would put up equal cash and we would buy a place for cash together. The title would be (50/50) in her name and mine, in the name of my trust. I said if I die before her, she could stay in the home until she dies and then the proceeds from the sale would go half to her daughter, the remaining half back to my estate for my children. OR, 2) She could use her money to buy a place in her and her daughter's name. I would buy a house for cash and put it in my trust. If I die, she could stay in it until she dies, the house remaining in the trust for my children.
If we would divorce, in either #1 or #2, then she could stay in the property until she dies, with my estate keeping my initial investment for my kids.
HER RESPONSE
1) "You offer me nothing
Paulie, she is a leech. Be honest with yourself. How much are you accepting this behaviour because of her physical appearance and the great sex?Dont hold back-please tell us what you really think !! ;D
She will not change, no matter how much you try to negotiate something else. From your posts, I suspect your values are too fundamentally different to ever make it in marriage.
I looked over your earlier posts, and your latest post also ... forgive my bluntness in my response... you are one of the few guys on here that I perceive as truly a "nice" person. You come across as honest and forthright.
1. I think you are in an abusive relationship. She gives you some praise, but also controls what and when and how much you give her etc. She does "game" in a dark and neurotic way, quick to punish but slow to reward. She is "herding" you into the corner she wants you to be in, just like a good herding dog does to sheep.
2. She is either extremely entitled or possibly has a personality disorder, like BPD.
You, as a "fixer/provider" type, are acting like a narcissist in thinking that if you just work a little harder you can fix the problem, and that you ultimately will win out over her bad behavior.
If she truly has BPD you will never win, because at any point she can dump on you, walk away, and blame any bad things on you and claim any good things as being due to her innate goodness and nobility. (this is sometimes called "splitting")
I am not a psychologist, but you should talk to your therapist or even talk to a specialist he might recommend. BPD'ers can really make you feel like Superman when they are in their "up" phase! With BPD there is no fix or cure... does anything written here, fit? http://gettinbetter.com/dance.html
3. Her SMV (sexual marketplace value) is low and dropping by the month, no matter how good looking she is, in comparison to a younger, good looking girl. She is not able to have kids any more, that also reduces her value (objectively speaking; doesn't matter if you, yourself, want kids or not).
For all the money you have spent, you could have found someone younger, with less baggage, both sweeter and hotter - and even had a kid with her if you wanted to.
Think I am a jerk talking about money? Then what do you think of Ms. Istanbul?
She is being practical and pragmatic about you, you are being romantic and sappy and you are getting your ass kicked, financially and emotionally.
4. She is asking you to compensate her (money and emotions wise) for her mistakes in the past with ex-husband and other men. Not good - you should have a clean slate, within reason, for the relationship.
5. Not even pimps and madams of brothels and whorehouses, do what she does - make you pay for some other guy's past use of her p*ssy. Think about that, let it sink in.
6. When she was hotter/tighter/younger she gave it away for free, but now she wants comfort and luxury - in return for what? She is not giving you more kids, raising your current kids, or helping you in your business interests - is she even an excellent cook and obsessively clean housekeeper?
(I know you think I am the biggest SOB after reading the above.)
What you should do:
If you really want to keep her, you will have to dominate her...
Let her business fail (it will do so anyways) and let her become financially dependant on you.
Make her "earn" her perks and luxury trips to places.
Personally, I know I don't have the strength to consistently do this, and I don't think you do, either.
(you shouldn't do this, you should kick her to the curb)
Hi ML,
Yes, I know the anguish you speak of. Honestly, I am back in therapy to deal with this. On my wall is a list of issues that tell me what I need to know. My children and my dear friends tell me the same thing you say. I am back here to finally grapple with cutting loose. Really, I am. This is beyond heart wrenching.
I will look for 'Blue Angel' and watch it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
ML, I know what I must do. I know if I do not, I will DIE an early death.
Once again, I appreciate your candor.
Paul
THE PROBLEM
I am still experiencing problems in two key areas - 1) her concept of how she wants to be supported financially 2) her often misguided ideas about love, marriage and relationships. Her idea is, in her words 'traditional' in that she feels a man should take care of a woman. I have no problem with that: I have taken care of the women I lived with. BUT, a key phrase is 'creating a working relationship.' She seems to lack that ability because she is stubborn.
In describing her ideal of a relationship, she uses words like 'noble,' 'generous,' and 'sacrificial' to describe what she expects from a man. She wants a man to 'win her.'
She DOES have the ability to make moneywith her talents as a gymnastic trainer
Honestly, I am hoping a light bulb goes off in her head where she will realize just what IS important.
... I am hoping the changes she will go through, she might try to go deeper into her soul to understand that she has a good man by her side.
I have been helping her financially over the last year, paying for her travel and giving her money. Her business is not doing well financially, so I offered to help. Given my income, it has not been an issue.
THE PROBLEM
HER RESPONSE
1) "You offer me nothing." (This comment led to a monumental argument; more about this later.)
2) She wanted me to put the title in her name only. (I told her the only possible way that will happen is after we together spend years building a NEW financial base. I will not use funds from what I built in the past. Nor, will I allow her to pass on my money to her daughter.)
Paul
Hi,
Thank you everyone for your kind and supportive comments. I will respond at greater length this week.
Best wishes,
Paul
Hi Everyone,
I am sorry for not coming back to this site much sooner. I have had a lot going on since my last post. But, there is no excuse for not being here, especially given your kindness to me.
MY UPDATE
Most important at this moment is dealing with my older son's (27) cancer. He has a stubborn case of Stage II Hodgkin's Lymphoma. He's been trying to rid himself of it since February. We are all hoping for the best.
SORRY FOR THIS BAD NEWS
As for my girlfriend in Istanbul, I am still at it with her. Honestly, it has been one heck of a ride for me. I truly love this woman and I continually deal with it. I am not a glutton for punishment, trust me.
Since my last post, we have traveled back and forth several times. Over the summer she was in San Francisco for two months. She would have stayed longer, but found out her mom has pancreatic cancer and had to go to Istanbul, then Ukraine, then to Moscow. Her mom is dying and this is her focus. So, we are both dealing with cancer in the family.
DISEASES GATHER YOU FOR A WHILE.
During her time with me, we had wonderful moments with one exception where we had a tiff over an issue that she responded to poorly. I could have responded better myself.
I have been helping her financially over the last year, paying for her travel and giving her money. Her business is not doing well financially, so I offered to help. Given my income, it has not been an issue.
IT WOULD BE AN ISSUE IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG WITH YOUR MONEY.
THE PROBLEM
I am still experiencing problems in two key areas - 1) her concept of how she wants to be supported financially 2) her often misguided ideas about love, marriage and relationships. Her idea is, in her words 'traditional' in that she feels a man should take care of a woman. I have no problem with that: I have taken care of the women I lived with. BUT, a key phrase is 'creating a working relationship.' She seems to lack that ability because she is stubborn.
STUBBORN, AS MANY EXPERIENCED IS NOT AN ONLY PERSONAL FEATURE, BUT ALSO A CULTURAL ONE.
Over the last 18 months I have enjoyed many precious moments with her. But there are moments she cancels it all out when she becomes scornful and critical.
I PERSONALLY WOULD NEVER SHARE TIME WITH A SCORNFUL RELATIVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT IS A BIG NO NO FOR ME, CONSIDERING A LTR. I CAN HANDLE A CRITICAL WOMAN, BECAUSE WHAT I DO CAN BE CRITICIZED AND I ACCEPT IT. I ACCEPT IT BECAUSE MY PARTNER HAS TO EXPRESS HERSELF AND I HAVE ALSO SOME THINGS SHE WANTS ME TO MODIFY. MY TASK IS FOR A PART TO MAKE SOME AMELIORATION TO BE A BETTER MAN AND A BETTER BELOVED. I HAVE SOME DOUBT THAT CRITICS IN YOUR GIRLFRIENDS' MOUTH ARE ALL TIME DONE IN THE WAY TO IMPROVE YOU BUT MORE TO FLAME YOU, WHICH IS (FOR ME) NOT ACCEPTABLE.
(We've discussed this and she knows how I feel about it.) In a word, my girlfriend is a 'perfectionist.' I too have had these tendencies but learned to let go of it. She also has a negative streak, can be hard to please, can be demanding and objectionable. I am always looking at the bright side of life.
SINCE I HAVE FOUND A POSITIVE, MERRY WOMAN, COMPARE TO ALL PREVIOUS AW (DEPRESSIVE, NEGATIVE, ALWAYS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH SOMEONE OR SOMETHING), I CAN TELL YOU THAT IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT. IN FACT I THINK IT TELLS MORE ABOUT ME AND WHAT I HAVE DECIDED TO NOT ACCEPT THAN ABOUT GIRLS.
So, why am I with this woman you might wonder? When she is kind, she can be the sweetest person, fun, entertaining, intellectual, humorous, silly, and a wonderful lover.
However, she has an idealistic view of how a man should be in relationship. Or maybe I am not her type.
THIS TYPE OF IDEAL IS JUST A WAY TO MANIPULATE YOU, IT IS ONLY A PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE.
In describing her ideal of a relationship, she uses words like 'noble,' 'generous,' and 'sacrificial' to describe what she expects from a man.
She wants a man to 'win her.'
YOU ARE THE PRICE GUY, NOT HER ! HER TIME HAS GONE ! YOU ARE THE PRICE, NOT HER, THERE ARE PLENTY, BELIEVE ME, PLENTY GIRLS YOUNGER, MORE GORGEOUS AND NICER WHO WAIT YOU.
(As for me, I want to be accepted for me: just a down-to-earth and humble person.)
In October, I flew out to help with her dying mom. Before I went, I spent three weeks studying pancreatic cancer with the intent of helping the family understand how to deal with it. Her mom opted not to do any type of cancer therapy, so I decided to help in other ways through homeopathy. It was the top 10 most stressful five weeks I endured. My point is that I don't think she get how much stress this caused ME. THIS WAS VERY GENEROUS ABOUT YOU, BUT PERHAPS IT IS NOT YOUR ROLE.
WHAT I OFFERED
While I was there, I mentioned (obviously the wrong time to do this) that we should consider being together. She said I was being abstract and needed something concrete. So, while she was attending to her mom, I spent a day looking at my financial position and came up with an idea and presented it to her.
Before I share the details, the context of my thinking was that she would keep her business in Istanbul, while moving to the US. We both thought she could run the business from the US, with her traveling back occasionally. (Now that she is in Ukraine attending to her mom who is close to dying, I believe it would not be possible for her to run her business from a distance: her business is suffering without her there.)
My starting point offered to give her $2K cash a month, lease her a new car, cover medical, car insurance, phone, food, etc. Essentially, she would not have any expenses. Perhaps $2K is not much, but it is a beginning. I would also, after a period of 3-6 months of getting adjusted, offer to help her establish her business here in the US. She DOES have the ability to make money with her talents as a gymnastic trainer.
THE PITFALL HERE IS THAT SHE WILL BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE READY TO PUT A LOT OF CASH IN A BUSINESS WHICH BELONG TO HER. THIS IS HERE THE TRAP.
HELP HER TO FIND A JOB IN GYMNASTIC YES, BUT NO MORE.
She has a concern about housing, especially if we break up. So, I came up with a couple of ideas. - 1) She sells the two apartments she has in Ukraine. She could likely get between, $100-140K. I would put up equal cash and we would buy a place for cash together. The title would be (50/50) in her name and mine, in the name of my trust. I said if I die before her, she could stay in the home until she dies and then the proceeds from the sale would go half to her daughter, the remaining half back to my estate for my children. OR, 2) She could use her money to buy a place in her and her daughter's name. I would buy a house for cash and put it in my trust. If I die, she could stay in it until she dies, the house remaining in the trust for my children.
If we would divorce,
WHY WOULD YOU GET MARRIED ? IF SHE CAN COME BACK AND FORTH AND STAY WITHOUTH BEING MARRIED IT WILL BE BETTER FOR YOU, YOU WOULD AVOID TO BE CLEANED BY THE JUDGE IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG. ALL YOUR PLANS, EXPLAINED HERE, WILL HAVE LITTLE EFFECTS IN CASE OF DIVORCE WHEN THE JUDGE WILL PUT HIS NOSE IN IT, DEPENDING OF THE STATE YOU ARE (I CAN BE WRONG ABOUT THIS IN CASE OF PRENUP BUT WITH THIS WOMEN IT IS LIKELY YOU HAVE TO EXPECT A LOT OF FIGHT AROUND THIS TOPIC)
in either #1 or #2, then she could stay in the property until she dies, with my estate keeping my initial investment for my kids.
HER RESPONSE
1) "You offer me nothing." (This comment led to a monumental argument; more about this later.)
2) She wanted me to put the title in her name only. (I told her the only possible way that will happen is after we together spend years building a NEW financial base. I will not use funds from what I built in the past. Nor, will I allow her to pass on my money to her daughter.)
I THINK YOU NEED TO KICK HER ASS. YOU HAVE INHERITED OF THIS WESTERN DEMEANOR TO BARGAIN AND BARGAIN TILL YOU PLEASE TO A WOMAN. WITH THIS ONE IT WOULD BE ENDLESS BECAUSE SHE HAS A DISTORTED IMAGE OF HERSELF (OR TO EXPLAIN IT AN OTHER WAY : SHE KEPT THE SAME IMAGE OF HER TWENTIES NOT CORRECTING BY THE LESSON OF LIVE). IT WILL BE ENDLESS TILL YOU KICK HER ASS BY SAYING "THAT'S IT, YOU LIKE OR DON'T LIKE (MEANING : "YOU TAKE OR YOUR LEAVE FOR YOUR LOSS").
YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO WIN A WOMAN, ENTIRELY, IF YOU ARE NOT READY, MINIMUM ONE TIME, TO LOOSE THE RELATIONSHIP. TO BE DEPENDANT SCREWS UP ALL YOUR FRAME AND LET HER THE CONTROL, WHICH SHE FEELS IT, AND WITH HER EXPERIENCE, SHE KNOWS HOW TO USE IT.
WHERE WE ARE NOW
She is in Ukraine taking care of her mom who will die soon, a week, a month or so. In any event, her business will crumble at this rate. We talk about being together, but do not go into detail. Honestly, I am hoping a light bulb goes off in her head where she will realize just what IS important.
YOU HAVE A FALSE IDEA OF HER AND YOU DON'T ACCEPT HER LIKE SHE REALLY IS. YOU WANT TO CHANGE HER AND YOU BELIEVE THAT IF SHE CHANGES YOUR RELATIONSHIP WILL BE PERFECT AND WITHOUT CLOUDS.
LET ME TELL YOU THAT IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
LET ME TELL YOU THAT I HAVE WAISTED ALMOST TWO DECADES OF MY LIFE WAITING PEOPLE TO CHANGE.
LET ME TELL YOU THAT SINCE I HAVE DECIDED TO MAKE BIG MOVES, NOT ONLY I HAVE CHANGED IN A MORE HAPPY WAY, BUT ALSO PEOPLE HAS CHANGED, SOMETIMES NOT ENTIRELY, BUT OFTEN IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY.
LET ME TELL YOU THAT I AM TODAY SURE THAT IT IS QUICKER TO FIND SOMEONE WHO MATCHES YOU BETTER, RATHER THAN TO CHANGE THE CLOSEST ONE YOU ARE ACTUALLY DATING.
LET ME TELL YOU THAT IT IS HARD TO GO AWAY AND TO GO AHEAD, BUT WHEN YOU CULTIVATE IT HONESTLY AND WITH RELEVANCE YOU ARE STRONGER AND YOU BUILD SOMETHING POSITIVE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE POWER TO SUBSTRACT YOURSELF FROM SOMETHING NEGATIVE.
We have been talking about her critical and demanding nature, but it only goes in at a surface level. Again, I am hoping the changes she will go through, she might try to go deeper into her soul to understand that she has a good man by her side. (Her last husband was a bum, a loser - a cigarette bootlegger who is on the run from England since 2008. This she calls ‘noble.’)
I RARELY HEARD AN FSU WOMAN VILIFYING A MAN, SHE DON'T GET AWARDS FROM THIS IMHO.
I talked about my situation with someone who knows me and she said I have a high tolerance for pain and stress and that I am a person who is committed. She is right, but that does not mean I will stay the course with my girlfriend. I said I would give this two years to work through; time is running out as we enter the 11th hour. I am beginning to look at my other options.
EACH TIME I SAID TO MYSELF "OK I LET YOU SIX MONTHS TO ...... NOTHING, NO MIRACLE NEVER HAPPENED. I JUST GAVE THE KEYS OF MY LIFE TO AN HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE WITH A PAINFUL DAILY, WEEKLY OR MONTHY RELATIONSHIP"
Lastly, as always I’ve respected everyone’s thoughts, ideas and comments. When you respond, please be kind, I’ve had enough negative criticism to last a lifetime. Just being honest here.
I will do my best to stay in this forum this time. I believe there are good people here and I would enjoy becoming friends with all of you.
Paul
PAUL YOU STAYED APART OF THIS FORUM, WHICH IS NOT TOO BAD CONSIDERING HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE HAMMERED. SO YOU DID THE RIGHT THING. AND PLEASE CONTINUE TO PROTECT YOU, ODDS ARE HARSH WITH YOU.
BUT HONESTLY I SEE NO IMPROVMENTS SINCE YOUR LAST POSTS WITH THIS LADY.
I MET SOME WOMEN WHO REALLY NEEDED A SHOCK, PERHAPS I HAD BEEN THIS SHOCK SOMETIMES, BUT THE BENEFITS OF THE SHOCK HAD NEVER AWARDED ME WHEN I NEEDED THIS WOMAN IN MY LIFE.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO AVOID TO STAY IN AN UNSATISFYING RELATIONSHIP.
Paulie,
Please give her up! She does not love you, and she never will. If a woman loves you, she will want to be with you even if there is some risk.
You have eliminated her risk. The deal you described for a jointly owned home would be a good deal for her. Yet, she said it was not enough.
She has failed every litmus test. Aren't you out of litmus paper by now?
Start over and find that special someone. The special woman will require 33% of the work you are now doing, and you will feel 1000% better.
Your children and friends met her when she visited you? Yes? Your children and friends worry about your happiness and health. We read what they said. Please listen to them if not to us.
THE PROBLEM
I am still experiencing problems in two key areas - 1) her concept of how she wants to be supported financially 2) her often misguided ideas about love, marriage and relationships. Her idea is, in her words 'traditional' in that she feels a man should take care of a woman. I have no problem with that: I have taken care of the women I lived with. BUT, a key phrase is 'creating a working relationship.' She seems to lack that ability because she is stubborn.
Over the last 18 months I have enjoyed many precious moments with her. But there are moments she cancels it all out when she becomes scornful and critical. (We've discussed this and she knows how I feel about it.) In a word, my girlfriend is a 'perfectionist.' I too have had these tendencies but learned to let go of it. She also has a negative streak, can be hard to please, can be demanding and objectionable. I am always looking at the bright side of life.
So, why am I with this woman you might wonder? When she is kind, she can be the sweetest person, fun, entertaining, intellectual, humorous, silly, and a wonderful lover.
However, she has an idealistic view of how a man should be in relationship. Or maybe I am not her type. In describing her ideal of a relationship, she uses words like 'noble,' 'generous,' and 'sacrificial' to describe what she expects from a man. She wants a man to 'win her.' (As for me, I want to be accepted for me: just a down-to-earth and humble person.)
***
WHAT I OFFERED
***
My starting point offered to give her $2K cash a month, lease her a new car, cover medical, car insurance, phone, food, etc. Essentially, she would not have any expenses. Perhaps $2K is not much, but it is a beginning. I would also, after a period of 3-6 months of getting adjusted, offer to help her establish her business here in the US. She DOES have the ability to make money with her talents as a gymnastic trainer.
She has a concern about housing, especially if we break up. So, I came up with a couple of ideas. - 1) She sells the two apartments she has in Ukraine. She could likely get between, $100-140K. I would put up equal cash and we would buy a place for cash together. The title would be (50/50) in her name and mine, in the name of my trust. I said if I die before her, she could stay in the home until she dies and then the proceeds from the sale would go half to her daughter, the remaining half back to my estate for my children. OR, 2) She could use her money to buy a place in her and her daughter's name. I would buy a house for cash and put it in my trust. If I die, she could stay in it until she dies, the house remaining in the trust for my children.
If we would divorce, in either #1 or #2, then she could stay in the property until she dies, with my estate keeping my initial investment for my kids.
HER RESPONSE
1) "You offer me nothing." (This comment led to a monumental argument; more about this later.)
2) She wanted me to put the title in her name only. (I told her the only possible way that will happen is after we together spend years building a NEW financial base. I will not use funds from what I built in the past. Nor, will I allow her to pass on my money to her daughter.)
I disagree. If the situation is as described, she wants her child to benefit from his income, including by holding real estate in her name, to the exclusion of his children.
I think you are just putting off the inevitable. It is obvious you can't take her as she is and she expects more than you are willing to give.
In matters such as this, I expect you to gloss over most and continue with this relationship until things get to the point of no return. We sometimes need to learn our lessons for ourselves.
He'll cave and give her exactly what she wants...
But there are moments she cancels it all out when she becomes scornful and critical.
She also has a negative streak, can be hard to please, can be demanding and objectionable.
"You offer me nothing." (This comment led to a monumental argument; more about this later.)
She wanted me to put the title in her name only.
critical and demanding nature
So, why am I with this woman you might wonder? When she is kind, she can be the sweetest person, fun, entertaining, intellectual, humorous, silly, and a wonderful lover.
I want to be accepted for me: just a down-to-earth and humble person.)
Honestly, I am hoping a light bulb goes off in her head where she will realize just what IS important.
When you respond, please be kind, I’ve had enough negative criticism to last a lifetime.
Let it be written on your tombstone. "Thank god I found a giver"
Oh...and Paulie...guess what, you may not think so but there's countless women who would love to have the opportunity to be with a nice man and have a full, enriched life. Don't let the time pass - every year your ball bag drops 1/8th of an inch. Get moving!
What's a ball bag?
If you put a property in her name she can divorce you and still get half of YOUR assets plus the apartment, plus alimony and child support. Given that kind of reward the temptation will be irresistible.
If you put a property in her name she can divorce you and still get half of YOUR assets plus the apartment, plus alimony and child support. Given that kind of reward the temptation will be irresistible.
First thing I did was to put the house on both our names and named her the beneficiary of my pension/insurance. Literally, every asset I had was now ours.
In Texas, it all is anyway.
Well it is DONE, OVER, FINISHED.
I literally kicked her to the curb.
Time for a break at this point. I will now move forward and seek time to heal. Then I will begin to lay the groundwork to find a woman who has a heart, is kind, grateful, patient and compassionate.
I will stay close to this site. Thanks again!
Time for a break at this point. I will now move forward and seek time to heal. Then I will begin to lay the groundwork to find a woman who has a heart, is kind, grateful, patient and compassionate.
I will stay close to this site. Thanks again!
I finally had enough. I always knew on an intellectual level this was not going to work. It was the emotional level in which I was not 'sober' enough to get past the alluring nature of this grifter, this gold-digger.
I really had a hard and expensive lesson - emotionally, spiritually, psychologically and financially. Thankfully I came to my senses. Otherwise I would have been broke - not financially but physically. This definitively has affected my health.
I want to thank each and everyone of you for your kindness, thoughtful comments and your continual support and not booting me off of here because I was being so intransigent for not taking everyone's advice.
Hello Everyone,
Well it is DONE, OVER, FINISHED. I literally kicked her to the curb.
Congratulations! I wish you a speedy recovery.
Just one thing though.
We can't let you get away with the above teaser and nothing more.
Please tell us the story of when, where and how you kicked her to the curb.
I will be happy to tell the story, especially since I've told it all along. I will do that over the end of the weekend.I would ask for a pic of her, but we might have a couple dozen guys making her a new guarantee.
... He'll cave and give her exactly what she wants...
I would ask for a pic of her, but we might have a couple dozen guys making her a new guarantee.
I would ask for a pic of her, but we might have a couple dozen guys making her a new guarantee.
I can understand the troubles and frustration of topic starter, he had lots of pain and been hurt a lot. I read all topic and was sad about all unpleasant moments.
But to ask him to post a photo of someone without her consent is legally inappropriate. This is an invasion of privaе life, no matter how much that woman was not nice with Paul.
It may be inappropriate, but you can find pictures in the public domain of just about anyone. Sharing such a picture on here is not illegal, just possibly in poor taste. I agree with your sentiments, just not the jurisprudence. Welcome aboard. Introduce yourself.
Just curious about how beautiful a woman could be in order to make an American man fall for her that badly.
I'd love to see her pic, too! Just curious about how beautiful a woman could be in order to make an American man fall for her that badly.