Pre-nups

[kingoffools13]

Actually, I wasn't making a generalization or blanket statement - I was talking about you specifically.

lol yes you were, you were lumping me in with one group or another. it is deffinatly a blanket statment either way, but the two labels you tried to afix me with were generalizations that you have obviously placed on people who you dont agree with.

It hasn't adversely affected me at all...and I would venture to guess that you are digging your heels in and being just as stubborn...

am i ? i'm simple discussing an issue, i haven't even decided if i would ever want a pre-nup ... you have, you are working out of a set of personal preferences.

The document is not emotional you are correct...however, there are people involved with the document and they are emotional

so then lets all let our emotions control everything we do

well, at least some people have emotions and understand that emotions are involved in a marriage

and some people realize that divorce also has emotions, but they are emotions that by no means should be "built up" ergo it really doesn't matter if they do have emotions, they wouldnt be aiming for emotional healing in a divorce, they would be aiming for the tearing down of a relatioship

you also are not discussing the issue in an unbiased manor - all you want to do is stick to the financial, logical side of things and totally disregard the emotions involved

that is almost the definition of unbiased, i cant believe you just said that.

...I guess that's sort of like the pot calling the kettle black - huh?
I have kept a level head but I'm sure you'll disagree with that as well...

level as the rolling sea? you are basing everything out of emotion, that never equals level anything ... ever

Then you obviously haven't been reading my posts. I have detailed out my reasons why I think that a pre-nup is a bad idea.

not once since i have talked to you

feel free to quote where you listed your "numerous reasons why its bad to have a pre-nup" and perhaps through in a quote of you explaining the line of logic rather than simply saying what said was incorrect.

However, you don't like them or won't acknowledge them because I do speak to the emotions involved and you seem to think that the only valid reasons would have to come from a more "logical" point of view...

real debate is only from a logical point of view, however i have not forgotten emotion and have mentioned them in every post, i simple conclude that they should not rule the situation/choices to be made

you however have completely ignored logic, and there in lies the problem because in a way you are debating half of the issue.

Again, I have given my reasons

where?

but you don't acknowledge them because they are "emotional" and not "logical".

aha .. then i'm just dense huh ;-) tell you what, make it easy on me and say "these are my reasons" "this is my thought process from beginning to end"

I never said that what I want is more important than what my SO would want

yes you did, both directly and implied, you wont marry someone that wants one, that means your desires are more important than theirs are, plain and simple

what I said was that I found it interesting that posters seemed to think that what the person who was requesting the pre-nup wants was more important than what the person who didn't want to sign one wants...

i explained this twice now, the person asking for a pre-nup is the one waiting for a response, not the person being asked. that means "the ball" "the decision" "the position to choose to give instead of being selfish" is up to them first and formost ... no matter what happens after that, it is the person being asked that has the option to either show they thought their wants and needs outweighed their SO's

K
O
F

 

[dluvs2trvl]

You know what kingoffools...would it help if I said you are absolutely right? Everything you said makes perfect sense and I'm just a dumb woman who doesn't know anything and doesn't know how to state her reasons or how to type a post...sorry I'm so dense and incapable of expressing my thoughts... I'll try to work on that and get better at stringing a sentence and thought together

Everything you said makes perfect sense and I really appreciate you showing me the errors of my ways. I'm so glad that you came along and made things so much clearer to me.

Logic devoid of emotion is the way to go...

(Does that make you feel better? Do you have the satisfaction of proving your point and "winning" the debate?)

 

[kingoffools13]

No, what I'm saying is that people have layers (you know, kind of like ogres and onions ) and that sometimes the deeper layers don't get exposed right away. But, it's always been a part of them.

yes but that would still mean people cant change wouldn't Shrek?

Quite the opposite, I'm saying they do have a choice but sometimes they get stuck emotionally. I'm not belittling people that get stuck, I'm just saying that they have the ability to reach down deep and find the faith/strength to pull through and heal, but something stops them from doing so.

I think everyone has a choice, but some people end up falling short and some people succeed. if people have a choice then that means they can change, which means its not a matter of who they always were, because they can become something new.

Anymore? Life stopped giving us ideal circumstances when Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. The more distrusting and suspicious we become of one another, the further away from ideal ANYthing we get. Why not move in a direction that takes us closer to ideal?

i do not see an agreement that says "should anything happen we wont be suing each other" as a step away from ideal

Again - if someone is that hell-bent on making their estranged spouse suffer, they'll find a way. Just as love will find a way, so will hatred if it's given the opportunity.

lol yes some people will, but does that mean you should stop trying to protect yourself then? just say "if they want it bad enough they will get me" and leave it at that? i dont think people are meant to be stepped on like that, even if others do have the ability to make them suffer.

K
O
F

 

[kingoffools13]

You know what kingoffools...would it help if I said you are absolutely right? Everything you said makes perfect sense and I'm just a dumb woman who doesn't know anything and doesn't know how to state her reasons or how to type a post...sorry I'm so dense and incapable of expressing my thoughts... I'll try to work on that and get better at stringing a sentence and thought together

Everything you said makes perfect sense and I really appreciate you showing me the errors of my ways. I'm so glad that you came along and made things so much clearer to me.

Logic devoid of emotion is the way to go...

(Does that make you feel better? Do you have the satisfaction of proving your point and "winning" the debate?)

still didnt post your reasons, are you avoiding it? or whats the deal w/ that?

K
O
F

 

[dluvs2trvl]

still didnt post your reasons, are you avoiding it? or whats the deal w/ that?

K
O
F

Read my posts... Oh wait, they're not clear enough or logical enough for you...well, guess you'll just have to always wonder what my reasons are...

 

[justaGUYnamedROB]

You know, reading this thread made me think of a famous commercial from the 70's starring a young John Travolta. Two boys are walking down the street towards eachother; one is eating out of a jar of peanut butter, and the other is eating a bar of chocolate. Neither of them are paying attention to where they're going when "BAM!," they crash into eachother....


Girls: "Hey, you got logic in my emotion!"

Guys: "Hey, you got emotion on my logic!"


Two great tastes that taste great together perhaps?

 

[dluvs2trvl]

You know, reading this thread made me think of a famous commercial from the 70's starring a young John Travolta. Two boys are walking down the street towards eachother; one is eating out of a jar of peanut butter, and the other is eating a bar of chocolate. Neither of them are paying attention to where they're going when "BAM!," they crash into eachother....


Girls: "Hey, you got logic in my emotion!"

Guys: "Hey, you got emotion on my logic!"


Two great tastes that taste great together perhaps?

LOL!

I love it!

 

[kingoffools13]

Read my posts... Oh wait, they're not clear enough or logical enough for you...well, guess you'll just have to always wonder what my reasons are...

if you are backing away from the challenge i understand

K
O
F

 

[dluvs2trvl]

if you are backing away from the challenge i understand

K
O
F

Nope...not backing away - just tired of talking in circles...it isn't getting either of us any where!

 

[kingoffools13]

Nope...not backing away - just tired of talking in circles...it isn't getting either of us any where!

I've been going in a straight line for answers, you have run circles around answering and have as of yet to list your reasons, i'm just trying to get you to tell me

Obviously signing a piece of paper with your signature - not offensive
the legal system - not offensive

so what is it about this particular document that is so offensive to you, what reasons do you find that make this such a bad thing?

Not just that you dont like it, but why dont you like it... please do tell

if you have reasons, and are debating with them, then it shouldnt be this much of a chore to drag them out of you. anyone can claim they have reasons but you have to list them for it to be part of the conversation.

K
O
F

 

[dluvs2trvl]

I've been going in a straight line for answers, you have run circles around answering and have as of yet to list your reasons, i'm just trying to get you to tell me

Obviously signing a piece of paper with your signature - not offensive
the legal system - not offensive

so what is it about this particular document that is so offensive to you, what reasons do you find that make this such a bad thing?

Not just that you dont like it, but why dont you like it... please do tell

if you have reasons, and are debating with them, then it shouldnt be this much of a chore to drag them out of you. anyone can claim they have reasons but you have to list them for it to be part of the conversation.

K
O
F

Oh my gosh! I've stated over and over and over GO READ MY POSTS! All my reasons are there...I don't feel the need to answer someone who can't go read the posts for himself...

 

[Luther073082]

I know some people who have been taken to the cleaners after a nasty divorce. It might be "just money" but, unless you plan on living in a shelter, without it you can't eat, you can't have a bed to sleep in, you can't have a roof over your head, you can't have a car, no bank will want to loan you anything ..... I would never remarry without a prenuptial agreement.

Wow hon and I thought I was the mean man who only cares about money. And even I wouldn't do it unless I had a lot of money or she did. And your right money is important to doing these things.

But hey it sounds like you have some experience with the divorce, so I can't blame you. If you ask me you are over protecting yourself because you got hurt but its better to over protect yourself then under protect yourself.

Unless of course you are rich. . .

 

[Tamara224]

I've been going in a straight line for answers, you have run circles around answering and have as of yet to list your reasons, i'm just trying to get you to tell me

Obviously signing a piece of paper with your signature - not offensive
the legal system - not offensive

so what is it about this particular document that is so offensive to you, what reasons do you find that make this such a bad thing?

Not just that you dont like it, but why dont you like it... please do tell

if you have reasons, and are debating with them, then it shouldnt be this much of a chore to drag them out of you. anyone can claim they have reasons but you have to list them for it to be part of the conversation.

K
O
F

Um, maybe you should re-read the thread. She has given her reasons several times.

Here, I'll make it easier for you:

I think that pre-nups are just a bad idea. I think that they set a tone for mistrust in the marriage.

If a person has any doubt and feels that there is a need for a pre-nup then I don't think they should be getting married...unless you feel that you can trust someone 100% and you don't need a fall back plan then I don't think you are ready to get married....because either you have trust issues that you haven't worked through yet or there is something about the person that you are considering marrying that makes you hesitate.

I think all to often we ignore that still small voice that is telling us not to do something and we plow ahead anyways and figure the legal system will protect us.

I also think that if you end up divorcing it really doesn't matter if you have a pre-nup or not because rarely does a pre-nup stand without being contested...so I guess people can either fight it out in court over the pre-nup or they can fight it out over the divorce settlement...really doesn't matter in the long run...

But like I said before, I think a pre-nup sets a bad tone for the marriage and create a sense of doubt and insecurity right from the get go...

Just my .02

I did give reasoning for mine however you have deemed my reasons as emotional...so how do I debate with someone who isn't willing to give weight to my point of view...

Again, the same could be said in reverse. Why is it that you are giving more weight to the man's point of view (or to the woman if she is asking for the pre-nup) then to the one who is uncomfortable with signing it? Why do you think that it would only be a small discomfort to the person being asked to sign it? Why do you think it is more important for the person who is asking for it to feel comfortable than for the person who doesn't want to sign it?

You are focused soley on the financial side of a marriage and are giving no importance to the actual relationship of the marriage and the idea of two people becoming one...that is being totally left out of your equation and scenerio.

I agree with you...if a man was as adament about having me sign a pre-nup then I wouldn't marry him either. My point of view is just as self-focused as yours. You said, "If all she can think about is herself and not the welfare of the person she is with?" Why isn't the same true in reverse? Why shouldn't the man consider the welfare and feelings of the woman he is with?

You also said that it doesn't sound like "she would do anything" for the person she is with...again, why is that wrong and yet you don't consider the man NOT signing a pre-nup as doing anything for the person that he is with....

If you're not willing to take that chance then you're not ready for marriage...

I do believe what I'm saying is right however you don't...what's the point of continuing to argue when apparently neither one of us is going to change our mind?

I think she did a fine job of expressing her reasoning. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean she hasn't stated it.

Just because you've unilaterally (and illogically) decided that emotional considerations are not valid reasons to reject a pre-nuptial agreement, doesn't mean that she didn't state her reasons.

And BTW, kof, you are presenting a highly biased point of view which fails to take into account the totality of the circumstances. Emotional considerations are real considerations. The fact that you think you are being logical and unemotional does not change the fact that your point of view is biased. Bias doesn't necessarily have anything to do with emotion or lack thereof.


Besides which, I wouldn't categorize dluv's reasons as purely emotional and illogical anyway. Contrary to what Mr. Spock might have told you, something can be both logical and emotional at the same time.

 

[kingoffools13]

Oh my gosh! I've stated over and over and over GO READ MY POSTS! All my reasons are there...I don't feel the need to answer someone who can't go read the posts for himself...

you are still avoiding posting it, i cant believe that you would sit there and refuse to post it when you could simple end the monotony by showing what your "numerous" reasons were

K
O
F

 

[dluvs2trvl]

you are still avoiding posting it, i cant believe that you would sit there and refuse to post it when you could simple end the monotony by showing what your "numerous" reasons were

K
O
F

Hmmm...and I can't believe you can sit there and refuse to read what has already been posted...

but lucky for you Tamara posted quoted some of my posts so you don't have to exert any effort to actually read the thread...

 

[kingoffools13]

Um, maybe you should re-read the thread. She has given her reasons several times.

Here, I'll make it easier for you:






I think she did a fine job of expressing her reasoning. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean she hasn't stated it.

Just because you've unilaterally (and illogically) decided that emotional considerations are not valid reasons to reject a pre-nuptial agreement, doesn't mean that she didn't state her reasons.

And BTW, kof, you are presenting a highly biased point of view which fails to take into account the totality of the circumstances. Emotional considerations are real considerations. The fact that you think you are being logical and unemotional does not change the fact that your point of view is biased. Bias doesn't necessarily have anything to do with emotion or lack thereof.


Besides which, I wouldn't categorize dluv's reasons as purely emotional and illogical anyway. Contrary to what Mr. Spock might have told you, something can be both logical and emotional at the same time.

yeah sorry but you are wrong, she doesnt state the reasons

i responded to these posts and showed with specific detail how what she said were invalid "reasons"

she said she has a list of numerous reasons, i simple went to see them, its not a big deal, she just has to show them

and no i am not biased, i have considered the emotional part, i have mentioned it in every post, if you want to repeat what she says fine but i have already responded to this accusation of being "biased" in my approuch. I'm not, i have taken it into consideration, i simply like i have said several times now, said that i dont allow for emotion to run away with me or control every decision.

nice that you came to her aid though perhaps since she is grown she can fight her own battles? i mean ... does it really seem like she is losing that badly? lol either way am awaiting a list of reasons, as she claimed to have them.

K
O
F

 

[kingoffools13]

Hmmm...and I can't believe you can sit there and refuse to read what has already been posted...

but lucky for you Tamara posted quoted some of my posts so you don't have to exert any effort to actually read the thread...

i read those and responded to them, they do not list said "list of reasons" that you were touting earlier

try again

K
o
F

 

[Tamara224]

yeah sorry but you are wrong, she doesnt state the reasons

Oh, well that shows me, I guess. Whatever dude. You're going to have to do better than that.

i responded to these posts and showed with specific detail how what she said were invalid "reasons"

No, actually, you didn't. You simply did the same thing to her that you did to me, you make unsupported conclusory statements like "no, you're wrong" and then think you've won the argument.

Again, you're gonna have to do better than that.

she said she has a list of numerous reasons, i simple went to see them, its not a big deal, she just has to show them

You have yet to open your eyes and see them. They're there.

and no i am not biased, i have considered the emotional part, i have mentioned it in every post, if you want to repeat what she says fine but i have already responded to this accusation of being "biased" in my approuch. I'm not, i have taken it into consideration, i simply like i have said several times now, said that i dont allow for emotion to run away with me or control every decision.

LOL, just because you don't read the thread doesn't mean everyone else doesn't either.

This is what you said about "bias":

you also are not discussing the issue in an unbiased manor - all you want to do is stick to the financial, logical side of things and totally disregard the emotions involved

that is almost the definition of unbiased, i cant believe you just said that.

You just admitted (while claiming to be unbiased) that you totally disregard the emotions involved. That is not the definition of unbiased. That is not even "almost" the definition of unbiased.

nice that you came to her aid though perhaps since she is grown she can fight her own battles? i mean ... does it really seem like she is losing that badly? lol either way am awaiting a list of reasons, as she claimed to have them.

No, I just enjoy jumping in when it seems like someone is acting like a bully. dluv is doing just fine. But you had already obviously discounted her just because you decided she was being "emotional" - so I thought maybe if you heard it from another person you might stop and listen. Obviously not, though.

It probably won't do any good. I have a feeling you might be one of those men who think that anything a woman says is per se illogical and anything a man says is per se logical. If that be the case, I'm sorry for you.

 

[dluvs2trvl]

yeah sorry but you are wrong, she doesnt state the reasons

i responded to these posts and showed with specific detail how what she said were invalid "reasons"

she said she has a list of numerous reasons, i simple went to see them, its not a big deal, she just has to show them

and no i am not biased, i have considered the emotional part, i have mentioned it in every post, if you want to repeat what she says fine but i have already responded to this accusation of being "biased" in my approuch. I'm not, i have taken it into consideration, i simply like i have said several times now, said that i dont allow for emotion to run away with me or control every decision.

nice that you came to her aid though perhaps since she is grown she can fight her own battles? i mean ... does it really seem like she is losing that badly? lol either way am awaiting a list of reasons, as she claimed to have them.

K
O
F

i read those and responded to them, they do not list said "list of reasons" that you were touting earlier

try again

K
o
F

At least your good for a laugh cause you're cracking me up!

 

[LonesomeTexan]

Question to everyone - What keep you guys motivated to keep posting, when it's obvious that no one is going to change their opinion?