Risky Business

[msmoby_ru]

msmoby, most everyone goes into marriage with trust but they should also go into marriage with brains too. You want to see how ugly a person you thought you knew can get, just wait to you get a divorce from them.

Billy I *was* married for 12 years and had the divorce from hell - I had the biz, the family heirlooms, and substantial assets.. all that really mattered when it all went "t*ts up" was spending quality time with the kids ....

I still (after all that ) say pre-nups "suck"... and my brains are fine,too, thanks

[BillyB]

I would like to ask the "pro-life" guys - what do you do for the birth control?   I assume that you use condoms all the time?   

I'm a virgin but if I wasn't, I'd probably pull out before release.

[Ooooops]

I'm a virgin but if I wasn't, I'd probably pull out before release.

Well, let me educate you, dear virgin, that's how lots of those abortions happen.    So, if you don't want to have children or your lady doesn't want to have children - I'd say that vasectomy is the best choice! 

[steviej]

Steve,
Just FYI, Lena had a full understanding regarding prenupts and considering the misery my ex put me through, gladly offered to sign one.  In fact, she was rather insistant on having one to prove her love for me was real and not about money.  She didn't get one as I didn't need it to prove anything.
KenC

Ken, thanks for sharing that. I also have a prenup. My wife expressed the same sentiments about it as your Lena. I think the argument that a prenup must be equated with trust is misdirected. No one gets married casually under any circumstances. I think in the case where one spouse (always the man in AM/RW marriage) has significantly more assets and earning potential thant he other spouse, a prenup is advised. Our "newbies" must give CAREFUL and THOROUGH consideration to this issue. If a woman won't marry you with a prenup, what does that mean? I think if she's fully committed to the marriage, and respects and understands the legacy financial position of her husband-to-be, she will sign it.

I recently skimmed a financial planning book, however, and in there, the author stated (directed to women) "Don't marry a man if he requires a prenup. Don't marry a man if he loves his money more than you." That's the counter argument, and it is empty. Why? Because such romantic puritanism is free for one party, and potentially financially disasterous for the other. It is no where near a "level playing field" for both parties with that argument.

[mark2353]

That's the counter argument, and it is empty. Why? Because such romantic puritanism is free for one party, and potentially financially disasterous for the other. It is no where near a "level playing field" for both parties with that argument.

That is almost verbatim the line my ex gave me when I mentioned a prenup! I should have followed my brain vs hormones! I would have would have come out much better!  
mark

[SANDRO43]

... Catholic church, for example, allows its African clergy to marry - otherwise there'd not be any clergy in Africa

News to me, and I'm sure the missionary ranks would swell to unprecedented proportions if it were so .

I think you're erroneously referring to the famous case of Zambian Archbishop Milingo, who first married a Korean woman, then renounced her, then went back to her again. He was eventually excommunicated by the Vatican on 26th September, 2006.

[pitbull]

Stevie,

You state you have a prenup, and since I am interested in the topic, may I ask you the following question:

In general, what assets of yours does the prenup protect in your case? A family business? Something else?

Also, how are your wife's interests protected? Does the prenup entitle her to good alimony in case of divorce etc?

I hope the questions are not too personal and thanks for response

Ken, thanks for sharing that. I also have a prenup. My wife expressed the same sentiments about it as your Lena. I think the argument that a prenup must be equated with trust is misdirected. No one gets married casually under any circumstances. I think in the case where one spouse (always the man in AM/RW marriage) has significantly more assets and earning potential thant he other spouse, a prenup is advised.

[steviej]

Stevie,

You state you have a prenup, and since I am interested in the topic, may I ask you the following question:

In general, what assets of yours does the prenup protect in your case? A family business? Something else?

Also, how are your wife's interests protected? Does the prenup entitle her to good alimony in case of divorce etc?

I hope the questions are not too personal and thanks for response

Pitbull ... you are female? What is your situation, are you engaged? Anyway, several posts back, Jet gave a link to a previous discussion on this forum where he says the issue of Prenuptual agreements was discussed ad nauseum (as he said). I think if you search on prenup or  prenuptual you will find it. Or find his post here about 3-4 pages back.

I don't want to discuss specifics from my case. Each case and set of needs is different, and the laws are different in each state.

[Todd]

deleted

[pitbull]

Stevie,

I understand why you want to keep the details of you situation private, thanks for the answer anyway...

I am actually married, and I'm one of those women who would not marry a man who insists on the prenup 

As for the thread, I read it long time ago, but I'm looking for an answer to certain questions, so never hurts to ask a new member 

 

Pitbull ... you are female? What is your situation, are you engaged? Anyway, several posts back, Jet gave a link to a previous discussion on this forum where he says the issue of Prenuptual agreements was discussed ad nauseum (as he said). I think if you search on prenup or  prenuptual you will find it. Or find his post here about 3-4 pages back.

I don't want to discuss specifics from my case. Each case and set of needs is different, and the laws are different in each state.

[steviej]

... I am actually married, and I'm one of those women who would not marry a man who insists on the prenup 

Are you sure? Again, I think your feeling about it would depend on your understanding his situation. I was married before, divorced, and took a hammering financially because of it. I told my fiance all about this. I was able to explain to her the situation, show her the details of the situation, and she supported me. She did not interpret it that I was only "half" committed. It's possible that if your husband's situation had been different, you might also have agreed. The real test would come when, what if the woman you love refuses? That would be a tough tough situation. She's asking, "Why does he want this protection from me?" And he's asking, "Why would she refuse if the 'financial incentive' is reduce?" At that point, the trust might break. Thankfully, my wife never had a single doubt. Her attitude was, "I want to be with you, that's all I care about." I think in either case, whether to agree to have a prenup, or to agree not to have a prenup, takes a very high level of trust between the man and woman. In this forum, I realize that my responsible advice to "newbies" is they must carefully consider their financial situation and determine whether a prenup is advisable. That's really my point. I think it is very important that it get thorough consideration. But I agree, it could be a deal-breaker, and in that sense, a heartbreaker.

[pitbull]

Stevie, I'm pretty sure, since we don't have a prenup and it wasn't offered. There is only one situation where I would kind of understand why a man would want a prenup, but those men rarely if ever marry RW 

Furthermore, there is no way I would ever consider a man who treats a prenup as, using your words,

protection from me?

A prenup is not supposed to protect one party from the other in marriage, but to protect and insure the interests of both parties. That is why I asked how your wife's interests are protected in your prenup.

[Markus]

I just finished working 14 days in a row and am mentally lazy. But, I highly respect
Kenc who has posted a topic that deserves attention. He has again come up with
a topic that requires a man attempting this process to think about. I promise I will
go back and read all of the responses.  My thoughts are not a disrespect to Ken's
original post, but an addendum to a process that does have a risk. Let's consider
the risks that Kenc challenged and the risks that I challenged.

Risk of marrying a lady too junior your age ( a risk omitted in the original post).
I consider this risk to be very risky. Consider a 45 year old man going for a 20 year
old hottie. Now, any 45 year old would be interested in a 20 year old hottie. All you
have to do is consider the same risks in your home town. Now, knowing that FSUW
are not programmed like AW, it's very possible to get an FSUW as your wife with this
age difference. They want a man who will take care of them. Kenc did this same,
exact very thing. I might have the ages off by a year or 2, but he took an extremely
high risk and has been married for 10-12 years. The point is that he took a risk and
it worked for him. Although this age difference risk is not mentioned, Kenc is correct
in stating it's absurd to think a man can do this in his home town. When one weighs
the looks of a gal in his home town versus doing this same thing with an FSUW, it
would be rare in your home town to make this work. It's highly possible with FSUW.
Then again, the other risks that Kenc stated still exist.  Now to me.

I will be happily married for 4 years in July of this year. I wrote and talked on the
phone with a lady for 3 months. I visited her and proposed during the 1st week of
being with her. She is my wife today. Through observation on this board and a
previous board, I took a big risk. That risk was worth everything that I had hoped
for. I'm just wondering if I should have gone for an 18-year old gal (just kidding).
Oh, i forgot to mention that my wife didn't speak any English when I met her.
I have run over the language barrier risk with a big Mac Truck. It wasn't an issue.
Then again, perhaps the efforts of my wife and I made it work. It was a risk, but
I would rather risk marriage with an FSUW than with a WW.

Do you know how easy, and let me repeat that word, easy, it is to sit back in
comfort and give advice to folks just beginning? It's easy. My point is that the
risks stated in the original thread are valid, but omit the risks the poster took.
It's like me giving you an oral exam when I wrote the questions and
have had time to find the answers. I am more impressed by a man who asks
questions he doesn't know the answer to but is willing to find the answer.

Kenc is correct that the risks are more in going the FSUW route. But, he should
not worry about the same risks in America; What hot, good looking young 20sh
would go for him? It's possible if he flashes the checkbook. Young 20 year old
AW are not interested in 45 year old men. If they were, I think we could
create a new thread on those risks.

There are risks in this process. It's all about establishing a relationship. If you cannot
trust your lady after you think you have her, you won't ever trust her. You
can work through language barriers if you have patience. I don't and I did. Don't
be scared away from the risks. I promise you if you go the local gal route, there
are risks. The easy thing to do is nothing. Who said you will never bat over .300
until you take the bat off your shoulder? It's the same thing. When in doubt, run
it by this board.

Markus

 





I will be happily married for 4 years in July. What risk did I take (this was a typo...but, regardless of the risk
I took, where am I today? I would never have (gotten) this far if I didn't take a risk.)

[Ooooops]

Does that absence a right to live also extend to the ill, the disabled, the aged? 

To me the Living Will is the answer.   Once I can't function on my own without help of machines for extended period of time - it's time to go.   Death is just part of life. 

[Ooooops]

It is a fact of life that the child survives because the woman suckles him and keeps him warm and protected from danger.  And, the woman survives because the man hunts and toils that she might eat and also protects her from danger. 

This is some kind of dream world      Lots of kids suck bottles with formula or even rugs drenched in water, women raise kids on their own all the time etc...   That's life in not so perfect world...

[GreginGa]

Once again people have managed to turn a perfectly useful thread about dating RW/UW into something totally different.

[Ronnie]

This is some kind of dream world      Lots of kids suck bottles with formula or even rugs drenched in water, women raise kids on their own all the time etc...   That's life in not so perfect world...

Oh I forgot.  Milk comes naturally in bottles just lying on the ground (or do they grow on trees, I forget). and single mothers survive on their own, braving the dangers of the supermarket meat department with no help from any man where she draws her ballpoint pen and slaughters the steer for the day's meal.  Okay.  I guess, I stand corrected.

Let the energy supplies of the world and electricity get shut off and then we'll see how fast the world peels down to the primitive setup. 

[Ooooops]

Oh I forgot.  Milk comes naturally in bottles just lying on the ground (or do they grow on trees, I forget). and single mothers survive on their own, braving the dangers of the supermarket meat department with no help from any man where she draws her ballpoint pen and slaughters the steer for the day's meal. 

Oh, no, of course not.    Without the Big Strong Man (with tits full of milk) a woman and her child  cannot survive, it's the given.   

[SANDRO43]

It is a fact of life that the child survives because the woman suckles him

My mother did NOT suckle me (she had no milk, probably due to wartime food scarcities), and I DID survive to my current ripe old age !

I suspect that that crucial early deprivation may well account for my life-long attraction to women's breasts, I'm a convinced and unrepentant gynecomastophile .

[ScottinCrimea]

My mother did NOT suckle me (she had no milk, probably due to wartime food scarcities), and I DID survive to my current ripe old age !

I suspect that that crucial early deprivation may well account for my life-long attraction to women's breasts, I'm a convinced and unrepentant gynecomastophile .

Sandro, I just hope that you're not deriving the term gynecomastophile from the word gynecomastia.

Gynecomastia, or gynaecomastia, pronounced /ˌgaɪnəkoʊˈmæstiə/ is the development of abnormally large mammary glands in males resulting in breast enlargement, which can sometimes cause secretion of milk.

 

[Wienerin]

Hold on there Ronnie...
30 yrs ago there were a whole lot more of those ill, aged, and disabled dieing because the technology wasn't there yet. Now it is, but it opens another whole can of worms with the question "just because we CAN, should we?"

I wouldn't call this a can of worms, - more like a Pandora's box with all the problems and troubles and... bright shining Hope at the bottom Because like it or not - if we can we should ... ethically, carefully, setting rules as we go, but... See, there's no other option. This is the nature of science, research, discovery. If one suppresses it - on the high moral, religious, etc. grounds, there's always another guy somewhere, who'll develop this something, and who knows... E.G. there are some things that I'd rather see the U.S. develop and use than, say, N Korea or even China.

I have an acquaintance who is a highly respected neurosurgeon (and a practicing Pentecostal). His greatest fear, and as he relayed it to me, the greatest fear of his colleagues  is that medicine is soon to advance to the point where the body can be kept working long after the mind has outlived its usefulness, and will not function properly. His contention is that "life" with no "quality of life" is not worth having. He is adamant that many of the men who were saved on the battlefield in Iraq over the past 7 years, should NOT have been, because there will be no "quality of life" for them or their families - ever. How can this be considered moral or ethical?

Who is to judge if a person's mind "outlived it's usefulness" and/or "isn't properly functioning? And what is your b elieving friend proposing to do about it? And to me it's moral and ethical for the physician - which wasn't in doubts since at least Hippocrates'  times - that he preserve and prolong life. It'd be nice too if the ethical and moral doctor would consider first needs and desires of his patients. Surprisingly big proportion of maimed and disabled, horribly disfigured sometimes, terminally ill and suffering want to live as long as possible  - and not to depend on the judgement of someone, who'll want to terminate them due to inferior quality of life.

As for the abortion question, I am totally with you regarding those who would choose to use abortion as a means of birth control because they were too careless or lazy to think about the ramifications of their actions beforehand

Again, who is to judge and to decide? And we aren't talking exactly about this. Was she|he careless? Were they naive? Did the condom manufacturer goof, etc., etc. - it doesn't matter. What matters - can the embryo survive outside the womb or not? Sophisticated equipment notwithstanding, the plain truth is that if there are no lungs - no equipment in the world could help. With Darwin, Good Lord or US Marines able to do nothing about it.

[SANDRO43]

Sandro, I just hope that you're not deriving the term gynecomastophile from the word gynecomastia.

No, I made it up from Gr. γυνή (girl) + μαστός (breast) + φίλος (estimeer) .

Gynecomastia, or gynaecomastia is the development of abnormally large mammary glands in males resulting in breast enlargement, which can sometimes cause secretion of milk.[/b]

While this term may be current in medical usage, I consider it linguistically incorrect: it should be macrogynecomastia, or even megalogynecomastia.

I conducted a scientific statistical study on the subject, which resulted in my ideal size being 2.6 (B/C ?), generous but hardly 'abnormally large' as below .

[ScottinCrimea]

No, I made it up from Gr. γυνή (girl) + μαστός (breast) + φίλος (estimeer) .
While this term may be current in medical usage, I consider it linguistically incorrect: it should be macrogynecomastia, or even megalogynecomastia.

I conducted a scientific statistical study on the subject, which resulted in my ideal size being 2.6 (B/C ?), generous but hardly 'abnormally large' .

Actually Sandro, since this is a condition described only for men, I think it is linguistically correct.  Taken from the Greek gyno meaning female and masto, meaning breast, it is basically saying "a man with female breasts" and specifically enlargement of the mammary glands.  The enlargement of the breast itself is a byproduct of the mammary gland enlargement, so a man who simply has large breasts due to excessive adipose tissue would have breast hypertrophy, not gynecomastia.  Macrogynecomastia or megalogynecomastia would describe a man with very large female breasts. I'm not sure what cup size would move it from simple gynecomastia to megalogynecomastia.  Maybe the transsexual journals might say, but the medical journals don't.

How's this for going waaaay 

[SANDRO43]

Actually Sandro, since this is a condition described only for men, I think it is linguistically correct.

Scott, you're right, I missed the reference to men . Anyway, my self-definition is more psychological than pathological .

I was told of an epidemic of gynecomastia back in 1967 in the pharmaceutical company I was working for in 1968: the pill was still outlawed then, but it was known it would soon be permitted on our market, and the company was producing test batches with the massive doses of estrogen and progesterone used at the time.

The burly workers of the pill-press department were crestfallen when they noticed the consequences of their inadequate dust-abatement/filtering system .

[ScottinCrimea]

There was a minor epidemic of this in a high school when my ex brother in law was stealing his mother's hormone pills and selling them as narcotics.  They wanted a mind expander and got something else expanded.