Monday, September 10, 2012

Lean on me...

I have had marriage on the brain lately...

Which is normal, I know. A thirty-something woman who wants to get married and who isn't, is going to be thinking marriage 24/7. That's a given.
I am no exception to this rule, of course :-)

But what I mean here is...more than usual (if that's possible).

I was at a wedding recently. That of a good friend. I have honestly never seen her so happy in the ten years I have known her. The groom was also unrecognisably jovial.
:-)
Both have just hit the 40 mark.
After ten years together, I know they know each other well by now.
And their happiness on their wedding day tells me they are embracng the future together come what may.
Happiness with abandon on your wedding day, is, to me the ultimate exercise in Outcome Independence.
:-)

Did I say ten years together? That was not exactly true.
She picked him up. At an airport no less. She saw him at 'Check in' and decided she would have him.
She went to him and said, "Would you go out with me?"
He looked like a deer in the headlights and said 'Uh, OK'.
Turns out he was in her kindergarten class.
And he had pulled her hair once, in the playground.
Gentlemen, whatever you do to a woman will always come back and bite you in the _______.
You pull a girl's hair when you are 5, and she will pull you to the altar when you are 35...
:P
Just teasing, fellas!

I digress. There followed ten years of highs and lows and many separations during which she almost married someone else.
The path of true love never runs smooth, does it?


But alas, my thoughts turn to another wedding I attended when I was a child. It was perhaps the very first wedding I remember going to.
Interestingly, the priest at this wedding was of the same nationality as my two recently hitched friends...

He said, and I paraphrase from memory:

"Marriage is two people leaning on each other."
 As a child, I thought, 'how odd!'

But now I think I get it.

It's funny how 'getting it' takes such a long time. Is it to do with my 'slowness'?
To digress a little, a very good friend of mine sent me the following in an email when we were both in our twenties. It enraged and petrified me all at the same time. Precisely because it has a ring of truth to it :-)

And Grasshopper's comment in the last post reminded me of it:

"“…PVW also makes the point of the more sexually attractive women getting noticed by men more than the more marriageable women…”

In a sense I understand the disappointment women feel about this, I felt the same way when I realized women with bikini model looks were not going for me. I am a good marriageable man, shouldn’t that alone attract the best looking women? "

 

 This is what you want:

 
This is what is looking for you:
 

This is what you think you look like:

 
This is what you actually look like:


Hahahahaha!

Anyhow, back to marriage.
I agree with the priest...
I do :-)

But...
I have never heard a woman use the words 'Lean on me' when talking to a man.
To a small child perhaps. I guess one can say that (telepathically) to a sleeping baby :-)

I realised recently, from speaking to a couple of men that I know, that there is something about a man which drives him to want to have others 'lean on him'.
That something is (mostly) missing in women where men are concerned.

Let's look at it another way.
In women, there is a need to 'lean' on someone. Preferably a man.
(This is why I know that all those single women who claim to be 'happy to be single' are not being completely truthful. But fair enough, I understand their reasons for doing it, and in may ways I cannot blame them).

This need to 'lean on someone' is (mostly) missing in men where women are concerned.

Now, having said all of the above, I do know of some women who are great at being leaned on by men. In fact, it is increasingly a feature of modern society.
I personally don't actually know many men who like to lean on women but I know they exist, of course.


A feature of women's love is therefore to 'lean on someone'.
It may look like a selfish kind of love to men, especially if this is not accompanied by her also 'bringing something to the table'...
So it really needs to be accompanied by something else she can bring to the table :-)

A feature of men's love is 'allowing someone to lean on them', no?
But for this to be done willingly by a man, he needs to know that a woman will...trust him to let her lean away, no?

I like this song.





But I think Bill Withers is talking to other men here. If he were talking to a woman, would he use these words?
I would be terrified if a man said to me: 'Soon I shall also need someone to lean on'.

This is the truth.

Women can 'protect' men in different ways from how men can protect women.
Men of course can 'lean' on women at certain times, in certain situations.
And both of these are 'legit'.
But the words 'protect' and 'lean' would not be the words that come to mind when I think about these ways that women can help men.
Hence my fear at the thought of hearing this from a man.
Would this be the equivalent of a woman asking a man to 'nurture' her, I wonder?


On the other hand, I would have no trouble trusting a man I am already attracted to, to protect me.
That feels more 'natural'. I can do that :-)

But what about men?
Can you trust a woman?
Really trust her?

I wonder if trust is a feminine quality...
Trusting completely in God, for instance.
Women are very aware of their weakness, at least their physical weakness.
Are we therefore in a better position to trust someone else, than a man, who is less likely to think of himself as 'weak' in any way?

Am I conflating issues?
If so, in what way?

One of the men I spoke to about 'trust issues' broke up with his girlfriend because he believed she did not trust him on an important issue to him.
Did her lack of trust equate lack of femininity to him?

If a woman is to respect a man, is the best way to do this to trust him?
I am beginning to suspect it is.

A male friend wanted to know just one thing from his girlfriend before he was 'sure' about her.
Did she trust him...


I never really knew all this until very recently.
It was a huge 'aha' moment for me.

Can the married ladies/ladies in LTR confirm this?
 And the gentlemen? What say you about trust?

116 comments:

Anonymous said...

ST:

I wonder if trust is a feminine quality...

If so, in what way?

Did her lack of trust equate lack of femininity to him?

If a woman is to respect a man, is the best way to do this to trust him?
I am beginning to suspect it is.

Can the married ladies/ladies in LTR confirm this?
And the gentlemen? What say you about trust?

PVW: As I read this, I began thinking about the more radical feminist critiques of marriage. Not of course, that I am a radical feminist, but some of them have made the argument that the notion of trust and dependence is what makes women vulnerable in all sorts of dangerous ways, a naive romanticism: "he will take care of me!"

There are two books I have about that theme, in the monetary sense, "Money, a Memoir" and "Make Money, Not Excuses."

A less radical feminist might say, "trust, but verify, protect yourself anyway!"

I was thinking about this in another post, and this is not just historical.

So to the historical, when married women in the US could not own property in their own names, single women had to trust that their husbands to be would not be profligate spenders or abusive men who would take advantage of the power the law gave them, to take control of all property the woman brought with her into her marriage as well as to control all the property she acquired in the course of her marriage. He could do whatever he wanted with it, including use her money as collateral for his debts.

Wealthier families were not so willing to just "trust," and we are talking about the 19th c. here. They created trusts for their daughters so that their husbands could not access the money their families wanted to pass on. They legislated the Married Women's Property Acts to make sure wives still had rights to their own property.

A scenario, modern day. A woman marries and buys property with her husband; she trusts him to manage it well, but he fails each and every time through a naive idealism about business relations, for which he constantly needs her to bail him out. She decides she can't trust him financially, and so she creates legal arrangements to bar him from accessing her money.

In this instance, I think she could have done a better job much earlier on in assessing whether he was trustworthy with money and thus whether he would make a good marital partner. But she never imagined things would be like this; no one ever told her to be certain of the type of man you put your trust in.

As for me and the husband? Our mutual discernment enabled us to ascertain each other's trustworthiness.

Trust is not masculine or feminine; trust in gender neutral. My husband has to trust in me, I have to trust in him in every single way.

We have to lean on each other, that is what marriage is about.

It seems the push you are describing here for women alone to prove their willingness to put their faith in a man as part of their femininity is one that a red pill woman might latch onto in her eagerness to prove her worth, ie., to submit and trust. But it is too one sided and strange-sounding for me as a woman who is married.

But as I have said before, for me, submission has to be mutual, and trust has to be mutual.

just visiting said...

Trust is essential. But you're in a heck of a bind if at some point he is no longer trustable.

I think that we speak a lot about submission as a form of respect, but that creating comfort is overlooked a lot. And this get's into an interesting facette of respect.

Women want a man that is better than them. Stronger, honorable,with dominance and leadership. Some one we can look up too.

But so do men, in a complimentary way. Someone who is better than them. More cheerful, kinder, patient,loyal,graceful,nurturing, spiritual/religious.

I suspect that the pedestal is actually a feature and not a bug when it comes to how men love. The problem occurs when the p-ssy is put on the pedestal and not the virtues-backed by actions that create comfort, and by their very nature, respect for a man.

just visiting said...

And yes, trust is a huge form of respect. Submission is darned difficult without it.

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,
"trust, but verify, protect yourself anyway!"

I have heard this before. Is this really trust though?
I have a real problem with pre-nuptial agreements, for instance. If I were rich, I don't think I would bother with a pre-nup. And if I should ever marry a rich man, I wouldn't want him to slap me with a pre-nup either...
Because that would mean that there was an issue with trust somewhere... That would tell me that we were not ready to take the leap into the dark that marriage is...
Stupid and naïve?
Oh yes!
But somehow, I prefer that to the cynicism that I view a pre-nup to be.
Anyone else with issues about pre-nups?
I have no idea what the Catholic Church thinks of pre-nups or whether it even has an opinion on this...
Paging Bellita...
Bellita to the emergency room please...

"It seems the push you are describing here for women alone to prove their willingness to put their faith in a man as part of their femininity is one that a red pill woman might latch onto in her eagerness to prove her worth, ie., to submit and trust. But it is too one sided and strange-sounding for me as a woman who is married."
We have been here before PVW!
Logically, I agree with you. Remember I said before that for a woman like me (caught up in this cesspit that is the current SMV) I really have to act like I am already married to someone before I get married.

So yes, there is an element of having to 'adjust' my strategy a little. I don't have the time to wait until the current SMP is 'normalised'. I am 35+. In a 'normal' SMP, I won't have to act like a wife before I get married. But now, I won't get the chance to get married unless I consistently show what I can bring to the table. See? This is not my fault. I am a product of the environment in which I find myself.
Now, ain't that lucky that the requirements of men these days happen to be in accordance with the requirements I demand of myself...
I think I would have been in serious trouble if there was a conflict of interest here...
So yes, I am pandering a bit to men. You are right.
But this is a function of the gap in time-scale between you and me. Even a small time-scale, like 2 or 3 years, and the changes in the SMP are massive such that the players of the Game have to radically change their tactics.
Just ask any Manosphere denizen - they are having to do the same thing.
So yes, it would be strange to you, as a married person. Heck, it's strange to me too, and I'm still single!!

But...having said all that, I agree with you on one thing though.

A man might be looking for me to trust him to protect me, eg. in a physical sense.

But I would also expect him to trust me to be faithful and loyal forever.
That means, no asking for a DNA test to check if my kids are his. That would be the ultimate in mistrust.
So yeah, he has to know I am worthy of his trust, and I have to know he is worthy of my trust.
But if we are not sure, why commit?
Hence my assertion that pre-nuos are redundant.

But what about those who have suffered broken trust?
Is the answer always 'should have chosen better?'
I don't think so.
Is the answer 'that's life, *shrug*'?
I hope not!

What is the appropriate response to someone who trusted wholeheartedly and came unstuck?


Spacetraveller said...

"Women want a man that is better than them. Stronger, honorable,with dominance and leadership. Some one we can look up too.

But so do men, in a complimentary way. Someone who is better than them. More cheerful, kinder, patient,loyal,graceful,nurturing, spiritual/religious."


JV gold.

I have an off-topic question for you, JV.

Do you think women are more religious than men?
I personally suspect we are. In the same way as I rationalsed that trust must be a feminine quality because women sure can trust in something or someone much easier than men - an essential part of any religion - I also see that this is linked in some way to 'submission'.
I think part of the reason that the churches are lacking men is not simply because religions have been 'feminised' into what Dalrock likes to call 'churchianity', but also because 'religion' per se is a feminine experience.
I delved a bit into this in the posts 'Gods and Godesses' and 'Is God Gaming me?' Some men responded by saying that they have no problem 'submitting' to God. I am still trying to figure out how they can reconcile that with their masculinity...
Morality on the other hand, I think is a masculine experience.
I do think that men are more moral then women (um, not sure if this necessarily includes sexual morality - although of course there are some men who could put women to shame in this realm :-)...


"I suspect that the pedestal is actually a feature and not a bug when it comes to how men love. The problem occurs when the p-ssy is put on the pedestal and not the virtues-backed by actions that create comfort, and by their very nature, respect for a man."

JV platinum.

Anonymous said...

Hi, ST, regarding your notion of trust, I understand where you are coming from, and I'm glad you clarified your views.

Oh, and regarding pre-nups, I know people who have had them, and it is not a matter of distrust. They weren't even super wealthy or cynical, just very practical, ie., they had substantial family assets behind them that they or their families were concerned about.

But someone who is cynical, ie., a man who might have been burned, might want you to prove even more, ie., and have the pre-nup.

As you said, you believe you will have to prove even more that you are worthy before even becoming a wife. So don't be surprised if the wealthy man might demand you sign. Would you do so? Perhaps you will, if you feel it is the sacrifice and compromise you must make because of your situation.

Didn't someone post something somewhere in one of the posts that men who date older women are requiring a lot more, ie., paying for their own dates, that women were saying they had to break up with the men they were dating because they couldn't afford it?

I'm glad you agreed with me that trust is a two way street, and I thought if it in 2 ways, financially and sexually, but not in the ways you imagined.

Now imagine if I were a stay-at-home wife who depended on my husband for my sole support. Would he be able to trust me with spending "his" money as I went about managing the household, or would he demand I account for everything I spend and second-guess me?

This is one logical step my mind considers when I read the perspectives of men who are obsessive about women's submission. How far will they take it?

If my husband demanded that type of submission, I'd be troubled if I never gave him reason to mistrust my financial abilities. But if I were a flake about finances, ie., I never told him that I had large credit card bills I expected him to pay, I would understand such heavy-handed treatment.

On to the sexual, and this is one place where some of the conservative Catholic women in that one post some time ago have a point, to an extent.

Women are expected to be chaste, yet red pill women who don't despise men respect the differences, and do not denigrate men for meeting their needs.

Yet, what if you were a chaste woman, virginal who married a more experienced man who "sowed his oats," and did crazy things like have unprotected sex with women and picked up an sti that is asymptomatic in men.

As a good Catholic, you are not to practice artificial methods of birth control. So you get married and you go in for your annual exam some time afterwards, and you discover you have an sti. Your husband is your only sex partner.

I recall reading stories like this regarding women coming down with AIDS.

Without question, trust is implicated there. How do you feel? Do you believe you can trust him? Did he treat his body like a temple and imagined the possibility of infecting hsi future wife while he was having sex with other women?

Anonymous said...

Oh, St, that was me, PVW who just posted.

Marellus said...

Great post ST.

It's not about trust.

It was never about trust.

Any person can make a pretty accurate assessment of someone in the first few seconds of meeting that person ... and then you start lying to yourself.

And why does this happen ?

Hope.

Hope is a dangerous thing.

Bob Wallace said...

@ just visiting

"Women want a man that is better than them. Stronger, honorable,with dominance and leadership. Some one we can look up too.

"But so do men, in a complimentary way. Someone who is better than them. More cheerful, kinder, patient,loyal,graceful,nurturing, spiritual/religious."

This is true, which is why I keep telling people there are no Alphas, because they can't be cads and knights at the same time.

"Stronger, honorable,with dominance and leadership."

These are the basic of the Code of Chivalry. It includes prudence, justice, restraint and courage (the Four Cardinal Virtues).

Since feminism has destroyed femininity (and women have trouble knowing how to be feminine, men have trouble knowing how to act like men. Thus, a lot of silliness in the Manosphere.


Marellus said...

@ST.

I've found a picture of you.

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

I was fully expecting you to take me to task on this one, and I see I have not been disappointed.
I love it when you pull my ear :-)

Well, I have an answer for you, I think. Not a 'non-answer' like last time when we talked about family finances and mothers working outside the home.

I shall start with the sexual.
I actually do know of a 16 year old girl who ran away from home and hooked up with what turned out to be a paedophile when she was 15. A year later, she returned home to her distraught parents with a pregnancy and...AIDS.
The man had been her first.

This sort of thing that you describe happens all the time, unfortunately. I am particularly familiar with this.
I have another anecdote. And coincidentally I was just thinking about this on the way home from work just now...
One of my friends (still a virgin) has told me she would never marry a man unless both she and him have a battery of tests for STDs. I disagreed with her that this is necessary. Here's why:

(And to be fair, certain countries like France which are very 'Catholic' actually force people to do this, (yes it is compulsory in France to have a full medical which is disclosed to your future spouse) in an attempt to reduce requests for annulment of marriage because someone had hidden from the other an important infectious or genetic illness). So I know that a lot of thought has gone into proposals like this.
But my reasoning is as follows:

What am I going to do with the result if it is positive, i.e. bad news?

If this happens with a man who I have made up my mind to marry, an STD wouldn't stop me marrying him. There are people who are married with partners they knew had AIDS and other STDs. They manage. I guess this is one case where even the Catholic Church would not frown on 'barrier contracepton' lol.

But what if I was not told about this STD before I got married? Now, you know that I am well over 30. Any man I would be interested in would most likely be well over 40. I am not expecting virginity here, so the scenario you present to me could be a real-life scenario for me, and in fact for any other woman who is not married yet, even those in their teens or 20s.
If I wasn't told of a potentially life-threatening illness and acquired it after marriage, I would be tee'd off, no doubt about that! But at that point, the vows would have been taken. For better or worse, in sickness and in health...
No going back.
Let's hope whoever I marry would trust me well enough to disclose anything like this that could potentially cause me to walk, and still know that I would NOT.
Illness does not scare me in the least. You may know why this is the case with me :-)

Finances?
Remember I strongly considered taking vows of poverty in my teens. A life of poverty doesn't bother me either. The simple (and poor) life attracts me. It's bizarre, I know. But that's the way I am.
There are other issues that scare me when it comes to marriage, but they are nothing to do with finances nor sex.
If you tackled me on those, you would get a 'non-answer' from me :-)
So I won't tell you what they are :P

@ Marellus,
Hahahahahahahaha!
Dank u Meneer.
Yes that's me alright...
At my current age of ...6!
:-)

"It was never about trust.

What?!
Really??
Could you please elaborate?

Anonymous said...

ST @ PVW,

I was fully expecting you to take me to task on this one, and I see I have not been disappointed.
I love it when you pull my ear :-)

PVW: You know it, indeed!


ST: I guess this is one case where even the Catholic Church would not frown on 'barrier contracepton' lol.

PVW: This I recall, the discussions a few years ago on this policy, and I understood the church's recognition of safe sex, pragmatics over all, I thought!

ST: There are other issues that scare me when it comes to marriage, but they are nothing to do with finances nor sex.
If you tackled me on those, you would get a 'non-answer' from me :-)
So I won't tell you what they are :P

PVW: I can guess at one, something that really scares you, the possibility of your spouse not being alpha enough for you, because you are fearful that he might not be strong in a way you need him to be, as you really want to submit in your marriage as a means of being protected and "on his team".

You feel this way because submission in your view is a gift in return for protection. So even something as simple as keeping your own name bothers you, because it seems as though he is permitting you to meet an egalitarian standard which is not as protective as you would like it to be--if he is soft on that, meaning, egalitarian, what else might he be soft on and not feel the need to protect? Might he abandon?

Marellus said...

@ST

Trust ?

My darling, that is a most excellent idea ... so while I'm pondering this, will you kindly record Dogfights on the Discovery Channel for me ? ... that's the Fashion Channel my darling ... yes, I know that's a size zero my darling ... but it's not a Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero my darling ... and I doubt you'll see it on Tokyo Fashion Week my darling ... that's because they disappear when a F6F Hellcat is near my darling ... now why are you changing to the National Geographic Channel my darling ? ... but the F6F Hellcat is armed with machine guns my darling ... and it's Zombie Month on the Horror Channel my darling ... now go into TV Guide ... scroll down to the Discovery Channel ... check when Dogfights is showing ... and press the Rec button ... just like I showed you last week my darling ... when you were supposed to record that show on the fortifications of Marquis de Vauban my darling ... yes my darling ... it's that guy that built the beautiful buildings with water surrounding it my darling ... so why did I see a show of Venice my darling ? ... my show was not on the Travel Channel my darling ... I see my darling ... so now you're gonna record Dogfights for me my darling ? ... thank you my darling ... and I'll also give the cat some pellets my darling ... but that was last week my darling ... but the cat really liked your Muesli my darling ... trust me ...

Spacetraveller said...

Hey,

Who gave PVW the keys to the forbidden room in my head?
Lol.

Well, it seems someone's been psychoanalysing me a little :-)

I hate to admit it, and worse, to feel exposed - almost 'naked' in fact - but it's all true, what you say.
Now I wait for you to tell me it's a strange way of thinking...
Hahahahaha!

Joking apart, PVW, am I wrong to think like this? In fact, do you think I can afford not to?

Marellus,

Well I never learn...
For every 'normal' comment of yours, I should know by now that the next one will be ....weird.

And there we have it :-)

Bellita said...

First of all, there is nothing wrong with Jeremy Clarkson going after you! A single Jeremy Clarkson, that is. The married one should be off limits! ;-)

I prefer Richard Hammond myself, but he's married, too. (Darn!)

Secondly, I really don't have time for a long discussion, but my ears were itching . . . so I checked the thread and saw that ST was "paging" me . . . and now I guess I have to answer a question!

There is nothing in canon law that forbids prenuptial agreements. Having said that, couples wishing to marry must remember that matrimony is a sacrament and not a mere agreement or contract.

And you'll have to ask a priest about this, but what I recollect is that that someone who had a condition which might prevent him or her from fulfilling the procreative good of marriage might not be allowed to marry in the Church. (He or she might get a special dispensation, though.) Having said that, I don't think AIDS counts because you can still have children if you have AIDS--but then, of course, you put your unborn offspring at risk.

Grasshopper said...

@ST…

I think the person one has to learn to trust the most is one’s own self.

Trust your own judgment, your own gut, your own instincts. Or for women trust your own intuition about the guy not somebody else’s.

If you trust your judgment you don’t need to verify. You know. Yeah there is a risk. And I understand women are much more risk adverse than men are.

So I can see some verification on the woman’s part and am generally OK with it. But taken too far it would impact me like asking for a pre-nup would impact you ladies.

Grasshopper

dannyfrom504 said...

"One of the men I spoke to about 'trust issues' broke up with his girlfriend because he believed she did not trust him on an important issue to him.
Did her lack of trust equate lack of femininity to him?"

no. it wasn't a femininity issue. it was a conflict of interest and an issue of conditionalism on her part. yet my accepting of her was supposed to be unconditional.

doesn't work that way on planet Danny

just visiting said...

@ Bob

Very very true.

@ ST

I'm going to need more time on the religion question. I've written about 6 elegant answers, that ended up falling flat,lol.

Anonymous said...

ST at PVW:

Well, it seems someone's been psychoanalysing me a little :-)

PVW: Not at all, it is just that I have a very good memory! Some of my students think it is scary. They can say something in passing today and I'll recall they said it about 2 months later (when it is relevant to our class discussion) long after they forgot!

ST:I hate to admit it, and worse, to feel exposed - almost 'naked' in fact - but it's all true, what you say.

PVW: My apologies.... :(

I don't think your views are strange at all, and as for the matter of affordability, whether you can afford not to think that way, well that depends...

PVW's logical mind here....

Emotional needs are what they are, and they come from places within us that only we understand on a deep level, whether through self-reflection or therapy.

As for you, you have an emotional need to feel protected. How and why you feel the need for protection, only you know that.

We all need protection in our relationships, and emotional protection is a key type of protection, to feel that one's emotional needs are understood and that they are met.

Financial protection, that is important on different levels, ie., being married to someone who is financially responsible.

What I find surprising is my sense that you think egalitarianism, which I tend to think of as mutual submission, can't be protective. Mutual submission for me (in my marriage) is mutually protective. I mentioned in the previous thread on "misogyny" some of my recent views on mutual submission.

As for the alphas I have known, their demand for submission have really been a mask for very oppressive behavior, the demands for submission (protection of their needs) have not always coincided with protection of others in all the significant ways.

Instead, they demanded submission from others, but with respect to certain aspects of protection, they were self-centered and absorbed in protecting their needs only. Submission was not mutual.

So I find that in the husband, what I see is a mix of the beta and alpha. This results in his seeing that mutual submission and mutual protection works for both of us.

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

You clever girl, you!
I was hoping someone would recognise Jeremy Clarkson and Liz Jones...
I picked them for a reason (these were not the pictures sent to me by my friend in the email...).

I picked Jeremy Clarkson and Liz Jones because they are what the opposite gender doesn't want, in terms of character.
You may know that Jeremy Clarkson is deried by women all over Britain for his 'male chauvinistic' views about women. As presenter of the car show 'Top Gear' he is incessantly in trouble for saying things like, 'Women shouldn't be allowed in cars', etc. Liz Jones is an outspoken journalist with heavy leanings towards feminism, and is everything a MGHOW would cite as the reason he is MGHOW.
So these two are quite a pair...
I totally agree with you though. A single Jeremy Clarkson would be ideal (um, if he would tone down the machismo a touch lol). At the age I am, his physical state is not an impediment at all :-)
But I think at age 20, if I had been a Jewish girl living in the village of 'Fiddler on the roof' and Yenta the matchmaker had approached me with her toothless grin saying, 'I found just the young man for you!' and from behind her stepped out Jeremy Clarkson in shorts and no shirt....I think I would cry myself to sleep for a few weeks...
Hahahahahahahaha!

Richard Hammond had a horrendous car crash a few years ago. It was a miracle he survived...did you hear about that?

Thanks for filling me in on canon law regarding prenuptials! As usual, I knew I could count on you, Sweet Bell.
I adore you! No homo :-D

I didn't know about the second part of what you write. So a man who has had a vasectomy or a woman who has had a hysterectomy (eg. for non-medical reasons) may not be allowed to marry in the Catholic Church?
That's amazing!
I shall indeed ask my priest next Sunday...I had no idea about this...

@ JV,
Six answers? Lol.

@ PVW,

Your memory is scary!
I used to have a teacher like that at school. The more unkind girls in the class labelled her a 'witch' because aside from her excellent memory, she could look at you with this gaze that made you feel she could see right into your soul. She was a very scary person...and yet, very nice at the same time!

I take on board your views on mutual anything. I just believe ardently that the mutuality is done so differently by each gender that it may not seem at all similar, what each partner does. That is why I have a problem with the word 'egalitarianism'. Is it also because that particular word has been hijacked by feminism? Not sure, but Grasshopper's point about associating feminism with 'not compatible with him' comes to mind...I have a similar problem...

And yes, I know there are men who use the 'submission' thing incorrectly. But perhaps such men are also known by their other fruits...which show up in their bad characters? Vigilance in a woman is key...

Danny,

Thanks for clarifying! This is why I love to use to specific, practical examples. It helps me to understand things better...

Tell me, what are the rules on planet Danny? Do you expect and/or demand trust from the get-go, or do you prefer to earn it with a woman?

@ Grasshopper,

"If you trust your judgment you don’t need to verify."

You make my heart sing, Grasshopper. I am of this same opinion. Come what may, if I have made a decision I want to stick to it till the bitter ugly end. 'Verify' implies keep giving yourself 'wriggle room' to back out.
How long can one keep doing this?
Whilst I agree a rash decision is not a good thing, I also believe that after making the decision to trust (having arrived at that decision after a long period of deliberation), that's it. If you were wrong, you were wrong!

Anonymous said...

ST to PVW:

I take on board your views on mutual anything. I just believe ardently that the mutuality is done so differently by each gender that it may not seem at all similar, what each partner does.

That is why I have a problem with the word 'egalitarianism'. Is it also because that particular word has been hijacked by feminism?

PVW:

Thinking back, I mentioned that the biblical message was for wives to submit by respecting husbands as the head, while men are to submit to their wives through love.

Now I don't see anything that bars either spouse from loving, respecting and submitting to each other, the mutuality thing, which is the case between Mr. PVW and me.

That is where I don't see that there is necessarily any difference between the two.

As for egalitarianism, this is where I didn't see it as a matter of feminism speaking, but the basic realities of life.

Without question, the equal treatment feminists have used it, but I don't mean it in a sense of a combative: "we're absolutely equal, 50-50," a mindset similar to one I heard one of my colleagues lament became impossible once the children arrived.

Yes, there are the traditional roles that husbands and wives fulfill: provider and protector v. nurturer and caretaker, and there is nothing wrong with that.

But the realities of life and the possibilities of exigencies mean each might be able to do both, as called upon.

I can give you an example from visiting recently with a number of relatives, from the oldest great grandparents (in their 70s to 80s) to the newborn who just got here in August.

The great grandmother closely resembles the most traditionalist of types. The last time she worked, it was 1951 and she was a newly wed teenager with a husband overseas. He got back, went to work, and she began raising their family. The last child "left the nest" around 1979.

She never learned how to drive. So if ever there were an emergency and she needed to drive herself or her husband somewhere, she could not do it.

She was marveling at the parenting lifestyle her granddaughter was living with her husband and newborn baby.

This young dad is a nurturer and caretaker in a way his grandfather in law never was. Of course, he can't be in exactly the same way--he can't breastfeed, but he can rock the baby to sleep, change his diaper, and put him into the car seat. He gets up in the middle of the night, just as his wife does. I am sure that he will eventually be giving him his bottles and feeding him.

The granddaughter works; if she wanted to stay home, she can't, because they need the money and the health care coverage she brings to the table.

So yes, there are the traditional roles, but life today requires more fluidity, what I think of as egalitarianism, an ability to undertake multiple roles, the traditional one for one's sphere, as well as the role traditional for the other, as necessary.

Now we can argue is that healthy, is that right, is it the cause of the "evil feminists," but I don't think the granddaughter is complaining it is unhealthy she has her husband helping her in ways her grandfather never helped her grandmother.

She is not blaming the evil feminists who have caused her to have to go out to work and take care of her family, as some anti-feminist types do.

It is just the reality of life today, that her husband can not do as her grandfather did, and that was to work for the local railroad, support a stay-at-home wife and raise a family of four in modest but comfortable circumstances.

Anonymous said...

ST:

expecting and/or demand ing trust from a woman from the get-go, as compared to earning it?

PVW:

It occurred to me that for a woman to give up her trust too easily and way too soon is a sure-fire way to be taken advantage of in some fashion!

In addition, it is a surefire way to becoming an emotionally promiscuous woman, high N or not.

It is connected, I believe to your perception of having to "act like a wife" in order to become a wife, to trust and give more in order to reach the end goal.

Yours is the flip side strategy of the high N woman who feels she has to give up sex first to even get a boyfriend.

She has to trust that if she has sex first, it is only then that he might want to date her.

Anonymous said...

PVW again; as I think of the impreciseness of on line as compared to in-person communication, I don't want you to think, ST, that I'm saying you are emotionally promiscuous and given to grant your trust at the drop of a hat. That does not sound like you in any fashion.

However, I did want to note, and this ties in with what you see as Marellus' wierd list of "trust me" statements.

I spoke in my last post of the similarities between the two trust strategies, the one you described, and the other spoken of in places like HUS.

But here is something else that is important. For many women who strongly feel a need for security and protection from a male figure, especially when they grew up in fatherless homes, ie., the daughter of a single mom or the daughter whose father has died or left the family through divorce, the magical impression of protection from a desirable-seeming man can get them caught in ways that might lead to their downfall.

So the 16 year old was having unprotected sex with a man who might have said "trust me, I don't have anything."

Or the 20-something who believes not asking a man to use condoms proves she trusts him--I have heard stories like this. If she asks him to use one, his response is, "don't you trust me?"

Or she says, well, I've been seeing him for (x amount of time), I believe I know and trust him, so just this one time, or I'll tell him I trust him enough; we will just stop using them.

Bellita said...

@ST
You may know that Jeremy Clarkson is deried by women all over Britain for his 'male chauvinistic' views about women.

Top Gear UK is one of my favorite shows ever! I've tried the Australian version and the American version and they both fell completely flat. No Jezza, Hamster or Slow. :(

Not to mention The Stig!!! Hahahaha!

I really don't think the things that Clarkson says are anything more than a joke. As someone who occasionally says outrageous things just to see how people will react, I believe he is doing the same and laugh with him. I really doubt he is as "bad" as he lets his television persona be.

Richard Hammond had a horrendous car crash a few years ago. It was a miracle he survived...did you hear about that?

Yes, I did! And my favorite part is the light it shed on his marriage.

I remember Hammond telling Jonathan Ross that when he first woke up after the accident, he didn't recognize anyone, not even his wife. But she was right there by his bed and he thought she was pretty, so he started flirting with her. Hahahaha! I will never forget the way he said, "Thank God I fancied my wife!!!" For he was half serious! Can you imagine waking up with no memory and finding that you are married to someone you are not at all attracted to?

Looks definitely fade for all of us, as we age. Luckily, warm memories and knowledge of "inner beauty" can go a long way. But if you don't have the latter, then you don't have much! It was really a good thing that Mindy Hammond hadn't let herself go some years before so that Richard still fancied her!

Something else that I find touching is that Richard and Mindy have been practically inseparable since his recovery. Not because he is now clingy or she is now over-protective, but out of real necessity. He still blacks out on occasion and loses all memory of recent events ("recent" going back as far as one year), and when that happens, he needs someone there whom he remembers and trusts. Who else but his wife?

It's a cautionary tale with a very happy ending. From it, we learn two things . . . That you must pick a marriage partner whom you wouldn't mind having around 24/7 in case of an accident . . . And that you must keep looking as attractive as possible for your spouse in case he (or she!) one day wakes up with no memory of you!

Spacetraveller said...

PVW,

Thank you for 3 superb comments in a row :-)

The picture you paint of how life for a family has changed over 3 generations is a very clear and apt one.
I agree that there are different pros and cons for each scenario. Which would I prefer? The one I am currently subject to, i.e. the life of the granddaughter. I have no choice in the matter, so might as well like the one I have to live in...

Whilst I don't blame feminists for forcing me out to work when I could be knitting a nice jumper for my fifth baby by now (just kidding :-) I most certainly do blame them for misleading more than one generation of women. Have you seen Danny's latest post? It is about a 20 year old girl who is currently a virgin and wants to 'get it over and done with'. Who led her to believe that her virginity is something so cheap she should just 'get it over with'? Yes, the sex-pozzy femmies who started shedding their undergarments since 1964 and now their daughters and granddaughters think that is cool...

I am SO glad you clarified your position about the 'being a wife before actually marrying' bit.

The reason I believe that doing the above (which I shall have to do when in a relationship) is very different from a woman who has sex in order to get a man to commit. The two are not the same at all. Erm, let's just clarify that the former strategy does not include the latter lol.
The reason for this is simple: it takes efort to be a wife, especially when one is not yet a wife, because afterall there are certain benefits to being a wife that would be absent for the 'wife-to-be', eg. the right of 'ownership' as I described to Grasshopper not so long ago. Yes you run the risk of the man still going off and marrying another while you play wife to him, yes. Because he still has not committed, yet.

But it is good 'practice' for the time when one IS a wife. So even if said man walks, the skills acquired by 'practising' are still there, and can be used for the next man.
So it adds to one's marriage market value.

Sex with a man not your husband takes away from your market value should he walk.
That's the difference.

"So the 16 year old was having unprotected sex with a man who might have said "trust me, I don't have anything.""

This young girl was the patient of a friend of mine who is a nurse. In fact, in the clinic my friend worked at, there were many like this girl.
There were also married women there who had been sexually betrayed by their husbands and were now living with AIDS.

I might be wrong, but I think there is a world of difference between the consequences for the 16 year old girl and the married women. I really do. Both are of course very painful situations to be in, and of course I have genuine sympathy for both. Both trusted their men with their bodies. But in their heads, I think they would be in very different places. I think everyone knows what I am hinting at.
I bet if I did a mini-survey and asked all the women here, 'which one would you rather be?' most or all would answer, 'the married woman'.
My follow-up question would be 'why?'.
And the answers I would get would be illuminating.

So ladies, please indulge me. Who would you rather be in the above scenario and why?

Bell,

What a beautiful testimony of a great marriage!
Thank you for the lessons.
Richard and Mindy are so blessed...


marellus said...

My mother and father almost divorced when I was eight years old. The reason was another woman.

She became friends with my father because she was a nurse. Anyway, she was good friends with my mother as well. And while my mum's marriage was failing she could not understand why.

It took a chief nurse from the hospital to come and pay my mother a visit and tell her what's going on.

The marriage was saved.

This other woman was married as well.

And this other woman's husband later committed suicide.

The reason ?

She was at it with yet another man again.

I shudder.

just visiting said...

And that you must keep looking as attractive as possible for your spouse in case he (or she!) one day wakes up with no memory of you!

This is probably going to sound weird, but when I was in my twenties
I was having a particularly bad day. The kids were acting up, the house was a mess, I hadn't even put a brush through my hair. To make matters worse, I had a complete melt down on my husband.(Who handled it with a lot of class.)

Afterwards, when I'd calmed down, I thought to myself, " If ______ was meeting you now instead of then, he'd be running in the opposite direction. It gave me pause. And a new approach. I think that this was a key insight for me. It became a game to avoid falling into that rut. Though, the excercise program and new attitude had him suspicious, lol. I think I might have "dreaded" him by accident.

Bellita said...

@ST
Who would you rather be in the above scenario and why?

That depends on the kind of man in the scenario.

If he was asymptomatic and simply made a careless mistake, then I would prefer to be the married woman.

If he was deliberately concealing information from me, then I would prefer to be the unmarried woman.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Space Traveler
"A feature of women's love is therefore to 'lean on someone'.
It may look like a selfish kind of love to men, especially if this is not accompanied by her also 'bringing something to the table'..."

In a relationship that's actually healthy, the leaning on a man usually ends up also propping him up. In a healthy relationship, usually both people know this. The man certainly should as he should be leading the relationship and should have an accurate view of his assets.

As for the trust, pre-nups, and paternity test....

I'm surprised to find you so at odds with them Space Traveler. Everyone here likely knows the divorce rates - near 50% non-Christian and I think Dalrock last found was 38% Christian. Sadly, paternity test numbers aren't something readily available as no one has bothered to study them.

Either way, I consider them part of the screening process. I live a very sparse life with low earning right now because that's what is necessary for me to pursue my dream. My goals are to start a theatre company and also be a professor. With those, any future wife had best understand that I will protect the things I create and build from The world, myself, and her as much as possible - which means pre-nups and paternity tests to avoid the theatre company losing money to her or getting screwed on child support for a kid that isn't mine and that support dictating that I need to take a higher paying job instead of the ones I enjoy.

I wouldn't spring these on a woman, but would discuss them as considering marriage. I view marriage as something intended for having children - I would never marry a woman for any other reason other than to procreate (which is why I totally understand Mentu's newest post). I fully believe that children, finances, and expectations should be set before marriage. I don't know as I haven't been at a place where I would consider engagement, but possibly before that as well.

Spacetraveller said...

Marellus,

Glad your parents' marriage was saved...

JV,

You ran 'Dread Game' on your husband?! So it's not only men who can play this game lol.

Bell,

Thanks for answering my question.
Interesting: I was NOT expecting one of your answers :-)

The scenarios I give are both of a deceptive man.
To the 16 year old, as PVW supposes, he would have said, 'Trust me, I am clean, let's not use a condom'. The married man would have cheated with one or several women and just slipped back into bed with his wife, putting her at risk of whatever he may have caught elsewhere.
In both cases, I am specifying AIDS. Incurable (so far). Deadly (ultimately, although patients can stay alive for a long time with antivirals).

With this scenario, you seem to suggest that you would rather be the 16 year old, if I am not mistaken?

Why?

Remember the deed is done. The infection has been passed on. It is with the woman for life.

Under these circumstances I would rather be the wife...

If you need me to explain further my reasoning, I shall, when I hear your answer to my latest question.

I suspect I am being especially foolhardy here, but I would like to explore my logic with you and everyone else...

@ PVW,

Reading through our little discussion again, it struck me that I am indeed foolhardy!

I am arguing with a (happily) married woman about...how to be a wife!
I've got a nerve, haven't I?

Hahahahha.
I do love our discussions.
I like your patience. It must be the teacher in you.
Both my parents were teachers/academics, so I do find myself drawn towards teacher types...
Bell being another example...

Spacetraveller said...

@ Leap,

I finally did read Mentu's post. I had been warned by Jacquie that it would sadden me. And she was right!

How I view parenthood is necessarily going to be different from how a man views it. So whilst I do understand Mentu's post too, I still feel sad for him. I am of course 'projecting' my sadness if it were me in the doctor's office checking in for tubal ligation...

Now let me freak you out by telling you that aside from the fact that he is preventing himself from becoming a father (hence my 'projected' sadness for him), there is another reason his post saddens me.
According to the Catholic Church's rules, he is committing a 'grave' sin. A vasectomy is a drastic form of contraception. Considering that contraception is a no-no, I as a Catholic see a medical procedure such as he has undergone almost as a kind of 'mutilation' of his body.
Weird? Freaky? You bet.
We Catholics can get our knickers into a twist over so many things, for sure :-) We certainly have no shortage of things to feel guilty about. So not only do I feel sad for Mentu on a purely human level (loss of his potential to be a father), I also feel bad for his spiritual well-being (he has 'mutilated' himself in a way that the Church especially frowns upon).
I can't help my feelings on this. This type of gulit-tripping will be with me for life, I think. I think my conscience is God's way of running 'Dread Game' on me :-)

By the way, I also see marriage as a platform in which to have children. The two go together. Which begs the question: If I couldn't have children, or didn't want children, would I want to marry?
I guess the logical answer here is no!

As for pre-nups, I have mixed feelings...
On the one hand I would be keen to demonstrate to a man who, like you, may be living on meagre means, that I am with him for HIM, and not his money, and knowing me, I would very much like for him to 'test' me to this effect (because I know I would pass his test, given that I would actually have good intentions towards a man I would be considering marrying).

On the other hand, slapping me with a pre-nup suggests to me that he doessn't yet trust me, and that would bother me...
It would reduce our marriage to a mere business contract, and that, for me would be too 'secular'. I would like my marriage to be on a higher (spiritual) plane than that.

So, I am truly 'schizophrenic' when it comes to this issue. I have totally opposing feelings about it, and the cognitive dissonance I am feeling as a result is pretty bad. I am not sure how to get out of this crevice I have dug out for myself :-)

Bellita said...

@ST
Remember the deed is done. The infection has been passed on. It is with the woman for life.

But if they're not married, then the man won't be with the woman for life. :P

Not that I'll ever be in a position where I'll have such a safety net after sex.

You know that I (like you) believe that sacramental marriage lasts until one of the partners die. It would be horrible to discover that I have chosen as wrongly as the married woman in this scenario has. My two options are to die having gone the distance in marriage and to die having gone the distance in single life. If I pick the first choice, it would become so much harder if my husband were of such poor character as that.

If you need me to explain further my reasoning, I shall, when I hear your answer to my latest question.

Yes, please! :)

On the other hand, slapping me with a pre-nup suggests to me that he doessn't yet trust me, and that would bother me...

It's a Catch-22, isn't it? A woman refusing to sign a prenup is a red flag to a man. A man insisting on a prenup is a red flag to a woman.

It would reduce our marriage to a mere business contract, and that, for me would be too 'secular'. I would like my marriage to be on a higher (spiritual) plane than that.

To be tiresome about it, any valid sacramental marriage is already, by definition, on that spiritual plane you mean. Having a pre-nup doesn't change that at all--any more than having a secular divorce can change it. I know of some Catholics whose particular cross is remaining faithful until death to spouses who consider themselves divorced and able to remarry. This echoes my earlier thoughts about the tragedy of choosing the wrong person and having to live with that decision for many more years . . . or even decades.

So there is one sense in which a pre-nup does not matter at all. It's just another custom . . . like the engagement ring or the rehearsal party or the registering for gifts.

And there is another sense in which a pre-nup might be as much of a dealbreaker to a woman as a refusal to sign would be to a man. I'm not going to moralize because I don't think either side is more right (or more wrong) than the other. A dealbreaker is a dealbreaker. But now it seems we will have to filter for "attitudes toward pre-nups" very early in the dating stage! It feels a bit unnatural, but I guess that's our lot in the modern world.

Bellita said...

@Leap
I view marriage as something intended for having children - I would never marry a woman for any other reason other than to procreate

Me, too. :)

Except, of course, that I would marry a man! ;)

Spacetraveller said...

"Except, of course, that I would marry a man! ;)"

Well, Bell, I ain't that fussy...
Hahahahaha! Just kidding :-)

Thank you for your answer. I am still not sure about your explanation though.

If a rogue man has infected me with a lifelong virus, I would prefer to have been married to him than to have been a P and D.
For starters, this spells the end for me in terms of 'new people' if you see what I mean. I have a life-threatening virus. I KNOW that I have it. I CANNOT pass it on to anyone else. So I am stuck. To put it bluntly, my only options sexually are abstinence, the person from whence came my virus, or another person with the same virus :-(
Secondly, I may have chosen wrong, but within the confines of marriage is the BEST platform to deal with serious issues like this. Outside of a 'bond' like marriage, this relationship is OVER after news like this. So not only would I be dealng with a life-threatening illness, I would also be dealing with a potentially bitter and nasty break-up. I would prefer to be dealing with only one of these.
Of course, it is possible that this sort of thing leads to a divorce. But at least, I would think long and hard before such a step. Without the constraints of marriage, it is undoubtedly easier to walk, no?
But, you may argue, do I really want to keep this man around who has infected me with a virus I don't want?
To answer that question, let me ask you how you would deal with an illness such as cancer, diabetes, kidney disease or a heart problem? Exactly, you are stuck with it, because it happens to YOU, or YOUR body.
With marriage vows, your spouse (for better or worse) is part of YOU, as in 'two become one'. You are stuck with that person for LIFE. If you got it wrong and chose the wrong person, so be it. But you chose...

In the case of the unmarried woman, she has not yet chosen, sure, but is she better off that she did not choose THIS man? I would argue not.
She now CAN'T choose anyone else. Remember? She is stuck with an STD that is incurable. That door is now shut to her forever and she is on the outside. If I am going to have any door shut in my face, I would prefer to be on the inside already, not on the outside. At least on the inside I don't have to deal with rain, snow, cold...

That's the (main) difference between these two women. The other (minor) difference is that socially, morally, psychologically, legally, a woman who has done the right thing by waiting to get married before this sort of tragedy hits her is simply in a better place, in her own head...Society may not care (and in fact, society doesn't care!) but in her own head, she would know that every step possible to mitigate winding up with a bad guy would have been taken, by her. If he was ale to stand up and declare his true love for her in front of God and her family, knowing he would cheat, or even if he had an 'accidental affair' and then failed to tell her about it, knowing he could put her life at risk, then he is of bad character, and nothing in the world could have stopped him. The woman would rest assured that preventing or avoiding this would have been out of her control...

But if she was just a casual hook-up with a man at age 16, then she would blame herself for her predicament, a fate which is far worse for a woman than when she is a true victim.

Spacetraveller said...

"It's a Catch-22, isn't it? A woman refusing to sign a prenup is a red flag to a man. A man insisting on a prenup is a red flag to a woman."

Bellita, I agree!
The best scenario would be that a man NOT bring this up with me if he wanted to marry me. And I would know that it is on his mind, because in this modern clime, every man MUST be thinking that. I would then OFFER to sign one. And then he would say, 'NO, I TRUST you!' Then I would insist, to show him that I really appreciate his trusting me. And I DO sign one. That way, he is at peace, which would please me. And if down the line I am ever tempted to divorce-rape him one day, I would remember, and say to myself, 'Darn, I signed a pre-nup...'

Hahahahahaha!

This way, everyone wins...
:-)

Leap of a Beta said...

"On the other hand, slapping me with a pre-nup suggests to me that he doessn't yet trust me, and that would bother me..."

The way you word it makes it sound like the whole thing would just appear out of the blue without any discussion about it before hand. Which I think would be a signal for badness as the man is having doubts. But a well thought out and planned marriage, not a "surprise, will you marry me?", should take that into consideration.

"It would reduce our marriage to a mere business contract, and that, for me would be too 'secular'. I would like my marriage to be on a higher (spiritual) plane than that."

The state made the matter of marriage a secular, worldly thing when the government imposed laws revolving around it. To be sure, the religion and spiritual aspects remain, but they are no longer the sole part of it.

I would say that you should work on viewing marriage in its dual aspects, or you'll continue to tie yourself in knots without knowing why. It seems a large part of you still has the rom-com and religious ideal dreams of marriage, with part of you having red pill sensibilities.

Bob Wallace said...

In regards to all the discussion about pre-nups: Samuel Johnson made the comment the law wisely gives women little power because nature gives them so much.

In the past no-fault divorce did not exist, the children were almost always given to the father, and there was such social pressure against unmarried single mothers the children were almost always given away to married couples or else orphanages (I know adopted children and those raised in orphanages and they turned out just fine).

If we were to return to such time-tested ideas, there would be far less of this fighting about pre-nups. The law should be: divorced with no kids, the woman gets nothing ("But I gave up my high-powered career as a CEO with my degree in Marketing!!"). Divorced with kids, the father gets them. If an older wealthy man trades in his older wife for what Tom Wolfe calls a Lemon Tart, he should be taken to the cleaners big-time (this trade-up, however, is not as common as people think it is).

If people knew these laws were going to be enforced, they'd be a bit more careful who they married. People do respond to incentives.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Leap,

Sure thing, if all of the pre-nup stuff came out of the blue, then for sure, both he and I would not be ready for marriage. So yes, a discussion seems a good way forward...
Well said.


@ Bob,

Great proposals, in my opinion.
But of course no-one would enforce them in this day and age. They would be considered 'pie-in-sky' by many...
Yes I agree with you that people do respond to incentives!
Why else do we all get up in the morning?

just visiting said...

Pre nups are a big red flag if neither person has been married. I wouldn't do it. If I had daughters I'd tell them the same thing. You're taking the time to invest in a man and your future. Besides in EVERY SINGLE CASE that I know that there was a pre nup the man screwed around and eventually divorced because he wasn't haaaaapy.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Just Visiting
While I can see why that has happened in the past, I think that it will change for the future.

At the age of 27, I've never been married and doubt I will be before the age of 35 unless some amazingly feminine and wonderful woman appears in my searches (I haven't seen evidence of such a unicorn as of yet). But even if I meet her tomorrow and married her after a couple years.... Knowing what I know, I'd never get married without a pre-nup. For the reasons I've already listed and a lot of common sense defense.

Look, half of people that get married get divorced. I'd suspect that 100% of people that get married think they'll never be the half that get divorced. They're better than that. They're outstanding snowflakes in a society of depravity. Obviously.

So, I can rationally conclude now that whatever my thoughts on marriage are when I do find someone I love - barring any drastic change of laws/society - I shouldn't trust MYSELF on if I think it will last. It isn't about not trusting her - I trust a woman to say what she means, though I understand that due to their solipsistic tendencies and living in a far more emotional realm than men that those truths will change more easily.

Regardless. Until the laws change, my own judgment on women is trusted to pick one out that will give me the 'best chance' at a lasting marriage. But I don't trust my judgment or hers enough to NOT get a pre-nup.

Trusting her word is fine. Its the lifelong judgment that I don't trust, for either of us.

just visiting said...

@ Leap

Understandable. But I'd still advise against it. For one, pre nups give a sense of security that doesn't exist. The men that I mentioned either knew better and rationalized it, or truly were surprised when divorce actually ended up being a bigger financial devestaion than they counted on.

Most are basicly not even worth the paper they are written on. But, trust me, when a couple has a pre nup, EVERYONE around them knows. It gets brought up every time there's an arguement, or they go off to complain to their friends.

Marriage itself is a huge risk. And trust me, I know of what I speak.

But, I don't live in fear and I don't base my decisions in fear. If I had a partner in business who wanted out, I can assure you, there's going to be drama and expense. Long term leases and scamy people. Been there done that. Doesn't mean that I'm going to become a cubicle jockey living in fear of business.

And trust me, the stats on business' failing are rougher than the stats on marriage failing. So, that may play into my thinking. (And yeah, business pre nups are pretty useless too, lol.)

Grasshopper said...

@ST… “…I would then OFFER to sign one…”

Brilliant!

All men have some degree of apprehension about marriage. This would work wonders on that apprehension. It communicates loud and clear to the man her faith and trust in him.

Also it would take some guts on the woman’s part to even make that kind of offer.

I must say ST under that gooey stuffed animal hugging exterior you’ve got some nerves of steel!

Grasshopper

just visiting said...

Actually, I'm seeing a lot of similarities with business and game, lol.

But, this is where I see things differently than the men in the sphere. I think that the sphere is great in giving a place for men to vent and bring to light what they are seeing in the changing landscape of marriage. Also, showing where the laws have worked against them. The only qualm I have is in the fear mongering. Whether in sports, business, relationships, or higher learning, you can't expect to come out on top with a fear based frame or fear based decisions.

Preperation, perspiration, inspiration and enough life experience to truly make you outcome independant makes a huge difference, even if you fail. A person who has internalized this can lose everything, and come back at a fraction of the time it took initially because you know all the steps to make it happen. Blue pill business or blue pill relationship, not so much.

There's a big difference between blue pill marriage and red pill marriage. But at the core, there are no guarantees. But there isn't for anything.

Marellus said...

... the dictums of truth ... necessitates lies of noble intent ... to feed a blaze of cries ... reeking discontent ... in fortresses built on a hopeless earth ... where solace is found ... in cynical mirth.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV and Leap,

I understand what both of you are saying. I guess each of you is coming at this from your own gender's point of view. Which is fine.
JV, in addition, experience trumps everything, so your advice to me is golden, notwithstanding Leap's argument.

So whilst I would probably heed your advice if and when the time comes, JV, I have to disclose my reasons why I might not :-)

And Grasshopper's comment has helped me understand that my position on this might be seen as 'noble' in some way.
Trust me, it's not so noble, Grasshopper! It is not really about nerves of steel either.
But thanks ! I'll take any validation I can get lol.

I have a morbid fear of divorce. It is so irrational I think it is a true phobia. I once asked if anyone knew the word for 'phobia towards divorce' but no-one answered. Whatever the word is, I have this problem. It goes far beyond Catholicism. This is why for me, if a pre-nup is something that men feel is a safety-net of some sort for them (and I agree with JV - it really isn't as much as people think anyway), then I am more than happy to comply with this wish. It is not really a 'non-negotiable' of mine, but it might be his. Which is fine. As long as my own 'non-negotiables' are respected, I am happy to respect the other person's as well. Fair is fair.
However, this 'non-negotiable' by its very nature might imply that he thinks I am not trustworthy. So it would be a painful one for me to accept. Which is why I feel it might be better for me to 'jump the gun' and offer it before it is demamnded of me. This is purely to appease my hamster. I would be able to tell myself one day: 'He didn't feel suspicious of me. It was ME who insisted on signing the pre-nup.' See? It helps me to avoid resentment later.

There is another reason I would want to sign a (severe) pre-nup. My fear of divorce dictates that I would do anything and everything in my power to avoid a divorce. So psychologically, if I have signed a pre-nup that says that in the event of a separation, I get 1 dollar a year, then guess who would do everything in her power to stay married?
What did Bob say about people and incentives? :-)
But then again, two things come to mind:
1. Why should I need an incentive to stay married? Am I not strong/principled/courageous enough to respect my marriage vows without one?
Answer: The incentive would be for the days where I am feeling 'weak'. We will all have bad days in marriage, right?. I should prepare for mine instead of relying on Lady Luck.
2. (And I am sure PVW and JV will reiterate this one!)
Whilst I am so busy being 'fair', I run the risk of the other party walking all over me...
Yes, I take a big risk. I know that.
Hence prayers/bribes to Lady Luck/common sense/taking the time to vet suitors/seeking aadvice/speaking to you guys :-) all to avoid picking the wrong guy for the trip to the altar...

Marellus,

:-)

Explain it to me like...
Oh nevermind.
Lol.

Bob Wallace said...

@ Spacetraveller,

"What did Bob say about people and incentives? :-)
"But then again, two things come to mind:
"1. Why should I need an incentive to stay married? Am I not strong/principled/courageous enough to respect my marriage vows without one?"

The biggest predictor of divorce is showing contempt toward your partner.

Films have been shown to people of interacting couples. Even after about 15 seconds untrained people had about an 80% of predicting who would divorce.

Not showing contempt (stonewalling is another) in an incentive to stay married.

Bellita said...

@ST
If a rogue man has infected me with a lifelong virus, I would prefer to have been married to him than to have been a P and D.

It's mostly that my sense of justice makes me prefer to be punished after doing something wrong than to be blindsided with betrayal after doing something right. :P

@Bob
Films have been shown to people of interacting couples. Even after about 15 seconds untrained people had about an 80% of predicting who would divorce.

Pardon me if I butt in with something that will sound cryptic to you, but this is precisely what I was saying to ST about Bryan McFadden and Kerry Katona a few months ago! Even during the supposedly happy days of their marriage, their body language during public appearances raised more red flags than [Insert football metaphor here].

Bob Wallace said...

"Bryan McFadden and Kerry Katona"

I of course have no idea who they are but I understand your point.

I once interviewed a couple a few years ago and she was showing contempt to him (in front of me) and he sat there stone-faced.

I knew they didn't stand a chance unless there was a lot of change.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bell,

"It's mostly that my sense of justice makes me prefer to be punished after doing something wrong than to be blindsided with betrayal after doing something right. :P"

I think it's called the 'mea culpa syndrome'! Commonly suffered by Catholics, it can afflict just about anyone with an intact conscience...
:-)

BM and KK?
They are at it again, did you hear?
He made a cruel jibe at her on his recent marriage to someone else (not Goodrem) and she took the bait and kicked off on Twitter...
I think they are still in love with each other, personally...
But they don't know how to show it properly to each other...
Oh, kids these days...
*sigh*

@ Bob,

I like your theory. It makes sense to me.


Bob Wallace said...

@ Bellita

"It's mostly that my sense of justice makes me prefer to be punished after doing something wrong than to be blindsided with betrayal after doing something right. :P "

Your comment is one of the reasons I see show much ineptness in the Manosphere, because of its lack of understanding history.

"Sense of justice" is one of the Four Cardinal Virtues, along with Self-Control (the opposite of impulsiveness (Courage) and Prudence.

It's also why I keep telling imitators of Game and PUA that these are not philosophies you want to base your life on.

The cads I speak of - I have known some. They're cowards, they're not prudent, they're impulsive, and they certainly aren't just. Ultimately they have contempt for women.

I have the female versions of cads, and have been involved with some. They, too, are impulsive and cowardly - and most of them rationalize their behavior with pick 'n' chose feminist ideology.

Bellita said...

@ST
The last I heard from Kerry about Bryan was a snarky comment she made right after he first got together with Vogue Williams. She said that he had said he was returning to Europe to be closer to his daughters, but that after he "found a new bird," he never actually bothered to make time for his girls. (Oh, snap!)

So now I'm looking up the "news" you're alluding to . . .

Hahahaha!!! So this new marriage is his "first" marriage, is it? What a lovely bit of hamsterbation! I feel strange saying this, but I'm with Kerry on this one. Bryan does not get to redefine marriage just because he was unhappy with his first one . . . or just because he wants to push his ex-wife's buttons again.

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
Unless my husband-to-be were already very rich (or some similar circumstance), I don't think I'd offer a pre-nup. Partly because divorce is not an option for me and partly because I would be too tempted to make the pre-nup all about my own fears. (Those fears involve my husband having a second family with a mistress.)

What I would offer--in fact, what I already know I will offer--is a paternity test for all our children. I think it's a nice, tidy formality.

just visiting said...

@ Bellita

What I would offer--in fact, what I already know I will offer--is a paternity test for all our children. I think it's a nice, tidy formality.

Yes. I suspect that where I live, the problem is pretty bad. The hospitals will no longer tell parents what the blood type of their child is when they are born. To this day, I have no idea what my youngest child's blood type is. I think that a wife offering paternity testing would be a lot more graceful than a man asking,lol.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for being our teacher on this subject matter. I enjoyed your own article quite definitely and most of all enjoyed the way in which you handled the aspect I widely known as controversial. You happen to be always quite kind towards readers like me and help me in my life. Thank you.

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

Oh yes! I think there is definitely some button-pushing going on here...
These two are not done yet, I suspect...
I am willing to bet good money that by the end of the decade they will be back together :-)

Bell, you would offer a paternity test?
Good God, that is so much more hurtful than having to say to a man, 'Look, I won't divorce you and take all your money...'

Paternity testing is so much more than a pre-nup!
To have to prove to a man that you will have his kids and his kids only is the pits...
Heavens! That would sting! Money is one thing, but the other thing?

D'you know? It never even occurred to me that that is something I might have to offer.
When I get over the shock, yes, I would ofrer that too...
But definitely with more pain in my heart than for a pre-nup...

Mon Dieu, is this what the world is coming to?
We are all slowly tuning ino one big Jerry Springer show?

Thanks for that wake-up call, Bell.
You are absolutely right, of course. Such scenarios may well become the norm in the near future.
Good grief...

@ Anonymous,

Thank you for your nice comment :-)
But I hope you agree that the teaching here is being done by others... I am one of the students...
And my report card says chronically, 'Could do better'.

Hahahahaha!

Say, Bell, have you ever given a pupil of yours this kind of report?
Why do teachers love these words? Is it something taught at 'teacher school'? Is this 'Dread Game' teacher's edition?
:-)


Bellita said...

@JV
To this day, I have no idea what my youngest child's blood type is.

This reminds me of a funny story from my own life . . .

For some reason, my mother did not bother to learn my blood type after I was born and she continued to have no idea for many years afterwards. When I was about twelve, I asked her what it was, and she didn't want to admit she didn't know, so she gave me a random letter. Imagine the hilarity in the classroom when it was time to share our blood types and I said that I had . . . Type C!

I later found out that my blood type is AB. (But my mother denies ever having told me it was C. :P)

As for what the hospitals are doing . . . Do they insist on withholding the information, even when the parents ask, or do they just keep quiet and hope the parents don't ask?

It also seems relatively easy to learn one's blood type these days. Don't most teenagers do some experiment to learn it in high school Biology class? I don't know if there are kits one can buy at the drug store (like pregnancy kits), but now I can see a market for them. (Oh, dear!)

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

Type C?

Hahahahahaha!
That's so funny...
(But I bet you didn't find it funny when you said it in class and everyone laughed lol).

You are lucky. As an AB type, you can receive blood from anyone (you are a 'universal recipient'). The poor type Os are 'universal donors' but are limited to type O blood should they need a transfusion quickly. In any case, all emergency blood transfusions are performed with Type O blood, just in case...getting the wrong blood is rapidly fatal...

It is crucial that a woman know what her blood type is, at least that she know if she is Rhesus negative or not. A small but distinct minority of women develop a serious complication when they are pregnant with a Rhesus positive baby, i.e. if the father is Rhesus positive.
This is especially the case if the woman has had a previous blood transfusion before her pregnancy.

For this reason I am very against hospitals withholding this information as to a person's blood type from them. It is tantamount to medical negligence, especially in the case of a female child, who might need that information later on in her life.
In any case, if the goal is to 'protect' people if their paternity is not what they expect, often, these things blow up in the family's face when for example, someone needs a kidney transplant and no-one else in the family is compatible with them genetically...
Would be better to warn people when things first come to light, no?

I never heard of blood typing in biology class. Must have missed it lol.

A friend of mine was recently trying to tell me their blood type, and said it was A+ as in the exam result. I said, 'don't you mean A+, as in A-positive?'
:-)

Bellita said...

@ST
I am willing to bet good money that by the end of the decade they will be back together :-)

You're a more adventurous gambler than I am! ;-) My bet is on Bryan's current marriage failing and spurring another Twitter/tabloid war between him and Kerry (not him and Vogue). I just hope it happens before he and Vogue have a child, because there are already too many McFadden children bearing the brunt of his parenting style. (It occurs to me that if Brian cared more about his daughters, he and Kerry really could have gotten back together years ago.)

But definitely with more pain in my heart than for a pre-nup...

I know where you are coming from. It's such an awful thing for a man to suspect that his wife is trying to pass off another man's child as his own. Indeed, the only thing worse is the wife actually doing that! But the reason I don't feel very emotional about everything a paternity test implies is that I don't see it a husband's lack of trust in his wife (which seems to be the Manosphere's framing of the issue) but a wife's special gift to her husband--a way to reciprocate his gift of trust to her (which fits into your frame here, ST).

We women take for granted that we will always know that our children are our own. It is hard for us to fathom how much faith and trust a man must have in his wife to take her word for it, that her child is also his. It's especially hard for us if we are women who would never betray that trust in the first place.

Grasshopper said...

@B… “… What I would offer … is a paternity test …”

This will work only if you carried the child. If the two of you can’t conceive and you look to adoption it’s another scenario.

Have a pre-marriage conversation with your hubby to be about adoption. Is it an option the two of you can agree on and at what point does adoption become something you pursue actively?

I know the dream for nearly every woman is to have her own kids but if you are faced with the scenario of not having any kids and adoption – what would you choose?

Grasshopper

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
You obviously missed the HUS thread in which I mentioned that a guy I seemed to have great chemistry with never asked me out again after I told him on the second date that I wanted to adopt special needs children someday. :P

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
This will work only if you carried the child.

Now I have to ask. When you said, "This will work," what did you think my objective was? I'm really not sure where you're going with the adoption digression and what that has to do with trust.

just visiting said...

@ Bell

Type C!!!Lol.

The hospital is no longer allowed to tell parents the blood type. And I was pretty pushy, lol. I think that this would be a lot more controversial except for the fact that people can order paternity or blood typing kits on the internet if they want to.

Grasshopper said...

@B…
Re: My “adoption digression”

Your point in offering a paternity test was to assure your husband he wasn’t raising someone else’s child. Adoption = raising someone else’s child.

In my mind the topics synergize and offer some poignant contrasts. They flow one to another.

And let’s face it B… topics digress regularly around here…

That said, let me respond more directly to your prior post….

Frankly offering a paternity test doesn’t ‘work’ (for me) because it does not prove fidelity.

Women can cheat on their husbands and not get pregnant. Then get pregnant by their husbands and pass the paternity test with flying colors.

If my wife is faithful I don’t have to worry about the possibility of raising someone else’s child.

Fidelity is the gift that is meaningful to me – not an assurance that I’m the father of my wife’s baby.

Grasshopper

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
Your point in offering a paternity test was to assure your husband he wasn’t raising someone else’s child.

You're splitting an amazingly fine hair! If anything, a (positive) paternity test will assure a man that a child he has every reason to think is his own (because his wife was pregnant with the child during their marriage) is indeed his own.

A man who adopts a child has no reason to think the child is his own. (But how interesting if the opposite were true! :P Perhaps it is adoptive mothers who should ask for paternity tests, just in case their husbands are trying to pass off their "byblows" as strange babies. Hahahaha!)

Frankly offering a paternity test doesn’t ‘work’ (for me) because it does not prove fidelity.

That's an interesting point, and one which helps me see that even for me this is less about fidelity than about fairness. I mentioned that I would not offer my husband-to-be a pre-nup (in ordinary circumstances) because my own fears would soon reveal that I want the pre-nup more than he does. :P Where I live, it's a bit more common than elsewhere for men who are reasonably good providers to have a "second family" with their mistresses. Should that ever happen to me, I would like to make sure my husband's "legitimate" children get the lion's share. Basically, my offer of a paternity test is to give him some similar reassurance that his resources will not be unfairly divided among children who are his own and children who are not his own.

In any case, you're right that a paternity test is flawed as a source of information about the mother. What we've forgotten is that it is really only a source of information about the child.

JV has debunked the infallibility of pre-nups and now you, Grasshopper, have taken care of the paternity test. Which Manosphere sacred cow will fall next?

Bellita said...

@Bob
I once interviewed a couple a few years ago and she was showing contempt to him (in front of me) and he sat there stone-faced.

At first I didn't respond because this didn't apply to the couple I had in mind. But then I saw it did, only in reverse. He was showing contempt of her, saying insulting things about her that flew right over her head. This was actually really easy because she has never been the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was totally oblivious to them as warning signs. There was one point when he went far enough for the insult to register, but all she did was slap him on the arm teasingly and ask, "Do you want a divorce?" Well, of course he did. :P

Bellita said...

@JV
The hospital is no longer allowed to tell parents the blood type.

It just occurred to me that this would never happen in Korea, where blood types have the status of MBTI personality types. People reveal their blood types on social networking sites and even on their resumes. When I was tutoring Korean students, one of the first things all of them wanted to know about me was my blood type. And when I said AB, they all said some version of, "Oh, that makes so much sense!"

And if I remember correctly, there is a Korean soap opera which traces the romantic tribulations of a character with one of the more "undesirable" blood types, who tries to prove to the women he dates that he is more than just a type.

Spacetraveller said...

"Which Manosphere sacred cow will fall next?"

Can we now talk about a woman promising not to get fat post-marriage? Is there a pre-nup-type contract for this??

Hahahahaha!

"A man who adopts a child has no reason to think the child is his own. (But how interesting if the opposite were true! :P Perhaps it is adoptive mothers who should ask for paternity tests, just in case their husbands are trying to pass off their "byblows" as strange babies. Hahahaha!)"

Oh Bell, a chill went up my spine reading this. You have a way of unearthing things other people just don't consider.
Do you remember the case of that Austrian man Josef Fritzl who imprisoned his daughter for 24 years in the dungeon beneath his house and fathered seven children with her? Three of those kids were somehow 'found' on his doorstep and he and his wife raised them, the story being that they were the kids of his 'runaway' daughter. If only someone had thought to DNA test those kids to check if they were HIS, perhaps his poor daughter's ordeal wouldn't have gone on for as long as it did...
What a horrible world we live in.

On a happier note, I was just reading that the daughter is now in a relationship with one of her bodyguards...So happy for her that she has found a man she can trust and love after all the trauma she has been through at the hands of her father.

And talking of bodyguards, guess who else is getting friendly with her bodyguard?

Yes you guessed it...
Heidi Klum.

Grasshopper, you are right. Paternity testing is no real guarantee of fidelity, anymore than an end-of-year exam is a true test of a pupil's true understanding of the year's curriculum.

And in addition, there is something truly undignified about having to undertake a paternity test.
It is the ultimate accusation of 'sluthood' for a woman, and is a situation that evokes a lot of shame. I don't get how people on those talk-shows can subject themselves to paternity tests like it is just any other medical test. It is not. It screams 'I didn't trust my wife to keep away from other men'. Personally, I find that extremely mortifying.

"Fidelity is the gift that is meaningful to me – not an assurance that I’m the father of my wife’s baby."

And this is the right attitude to have, Grasshopper. It tells me you have high standards and you are prepared to stick to them.
Some men are so disillusioned nowadays that they may well settle for just being the father of the kids, even if fidelity of the wife is not always guaranteed...
I hope I am wrong of course, but I can't help feeling that this might be where we have ended up in the current SMP...

Bellita said...

@ST
Three of those kids were somehow 'found' on their doorstep

My way of unearthing things has a perfect complement in your way of making me see that what is right before my eyes is also in my head. There is a local celebrity couple that adopted a baby several years ago after the child was left on their doorstep. I thought nothing of it at the time because I am just the type to consider a child abandoned in my home as "mine." But just last night my mother told me about another high-profile couple with EXACTLY the same story . . . and now I'm not so charmed. :(

Of course I hope and pray that such a thing would never happen in my own marriage, but if I were faced with this "worst case scenario" I would want my husband's other children to be my children, too. No "second family," but all his offspring under one roof, calling one woman their mother.

And this is why I will probably not offer a pre-nup. I feel I would be implying that my husband-to-be would turn out an adulterer.

Which brings me back to paternity tests . . .

It is the ultimate accusation of 'sluthood' for a woman

That's so true when a man insists on it. Now I wonder whether a woman offering it would be "protesting too much" and ultimately making her husband look bad.

Grasshopper said...

@B… “…You're splitting an amazingly fine hair!...”

My feedback to you was not intended to hurt – rather it was intended as constructive in nature. It is obvious to me now that it did hurt you and I apologize for that.

On this blog, ST wants to hear men’s opinions on these matters. I have given mine. The idea of a pre-emptive pre-nup offer blew me away frankly. The paternity test offer idea did not make quite the same impression. That is only what I think and I do not speak for all men.

Last, take anything you read on the internet (including what I say) with a grain of salt. Your own common sense wisdom and life’s experiences should be the deciding factors in anything you do.

You can glean some pearls of wisdom sometimes from the manosphere (or femoshpere) and hear some fresh perspectives worthy of consideration, but none of these should reach sacred cow status – unless you’ve tested them in real life and confirm them to be true.

In that case no one comment would be able to “debunk” anything.

Grasshopper

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

"No "second family," but all his offspring under one roof, calling one woman their mother."

Very noble.
This is the ideal situation, of course. But I imagine very hard to pull off in real life.
Human beings being what we are, petty jealousies, resentment, etc. will all play a huge part and ruin even the best of intentions.


"Now I wonder whether a woman offering it would be "protesting too much" and ultimately making her husband look bad."

You know, I hadn't even considered this possiblity.

Now I am back to Square one...
I don't know anymore...
:-)

This is a tough one, for sure!

Bellita said...

@ST
This is why I didn't even bother to answer Grasshopper's original question. For me, having a special "trick" to prove that I won't take him to the cleaners seems silly, and a man who would require such a "trick" is the male equivalent of a drama queen who demands to be Gamed with spinning plates, dread, etc.

But I have been independently fascinated by paternity tests ever since I read an article that argued that Thomas Jefferson might not have fathered children with a slave. There is a part of me that thinks of it as a cool science experiment. I'd be just the type to say to my husband,"Wouldn't it be fun to take a paternity test for our homeschool science unit?" Hahahaha!

I first read a proposal for mandatory testing on an MRA site. As a legality or formality, I honestly find no fault with it. It's only when a couple bucks the "don't ask, don't tell trend" by requesting it that something smells off.

@Grasshopper
That's perfectly all right. This is all theoretical, as it should be. I admit my vanity took a blow when you said that what I thought was a great gift was actually not much, but it's good for the ego to receive such blows as that. In any case, you helped clarify my thinking about what the real purpose of paternity testing is and why the secondary purpose is flawed. And as I just told ST, the test simply got reframed as a gift in the context of this thread. But since I've thought about doing this for other reasons, it's really the equivalent of Homer Simpson buying Marge a bowling ball he really wanted for himself for her birthday. :P

just visiting said...

I have to admit, the only reason that I would even think to offer is because of the MRA discussions as well.

It's a funny thing though. I wouldn't think twice about mandetory testing, and I wouldn't think twice about offering paternity testing if it was discussed before marriage. But if it had never been discussed and suddenly out of the blue, I was asked to provide one, I'd be insulted. I'd provide it, grudgingly and resentfully. Honestly, I'd lose respect. That's why I'd discuss and offer it before marriage. And weirdly,those discussions before marriage would require finesse. Beligerence and demands would repulse me. It's a touchy subject because of the implications.

And as grashopper has said, it really doesn't prove fidelity. But, I'm not sure what would.

Bob Wallace said...

@ Bellita

"He was showing contempt of her, saying insulting things about her that flew right over her head."

A lot of feminism is based on the contempt for men, and in response a lot of the Manosphere is based on the contempt for women - degrading them with PUA and Game.

It' an attempt to make yourself feel superior by degrading someone else.

For what it's worth, I'm blood type O - the most common, I believe.

just visiting said...

Lol. not like I would be having children now anyways, but you know what I'm saying.

Bellita said...

@Bob
It' an attempt to make yourself feel superior by degrading someone else.

He recently did it again, after his wedding to his second wife, saying that he felt it was his first marriage because what he had with his first wife didn't really count.

@JV
And as grashopper has said, it really doesn't prove fidelity. But, I'm not sure what would.

I don't think anything "proves" it in the sense that if a person shows Trait A or Behavior B, then Result C will follow. For one thing, people are too complex to be boiled down to formulae. For another thing, it would be so easy for an unethical woman to ape these "red pill" behaviors in order to lure a man into marriage. Sound familiar? ;)

It's worth noting now that all we're really talking about is a woman offering to sign a pre-nup in order to show a man that he can trust her. However, ST has also admitted that she hopes the man won't actually take her up on it. (Even Grasshopper has said that it's the offer that would blow him away. Whether he'd go as far as to draft one with a lawyer and make his fiancee put her money where her mouth is, is still unknown.) It's almost like a s*** test, yes? ;)

Having said that, I don't think ST would make such an offer just to be manipulative.

just visiting said...

@ Bellita

I think this is at the heart of what bothers me. I'll offer 100% comfort within the relationship, but not in the actual decision making of commitment. That's his area not mine. I would question the strength of his commitment if I had to cajole, negotiate or make special offers. It would degrade me and it would degrade the commitment in my eyes. Wishy washy and less than determined. One foot in, and one foot out. Easily disposed of, if only in his mind. I'd wonder what kind of foundation I'm building on.

Offering paternity testing is as far as I would go. After that if a man requires a helmet, training wheels and a security blanket, he's not ready for prime time.






Grasshopper said...

@B… “…Even Grasshopper has said that it's the offer that would blow him away. Whether he'd go as far as to draft one with a lawyer and … “

I would simply turn down the pre-nup offer and give her a hug! That is as soon as I could pick myself up off the floor!

Grasshopper

Anonymous said...

Grasshopper:

Last, take anything you read on the internet (including what I say) with a grain of salt. Your own common sense wisdom and life’s experiences should be the deciding factors in anything you do.

You can glean some pearls of wisdom sometimes from the manosphere (or femoshpere) and hear some fresh perspectives worthy of consideration, but none of these should reach sacred cow status – unless you’ve tested them in real life and confirm them to be true.

PVW here:

This is one of the wisest and most grounded-in-reality statements, I must say.

It seems there is a tendency in the manosphere to presume that the manosphere view of reality is one that everyone else in the world shares, knows and experiences, and thus ST is putting herself in contortions over what might never even become an issue for her in her dating life.

But it is easy to presume that it is universal when one is so steeped in the mindset of others who share the same views, that it is easy to forget that there are plenty of others who might not even be part of it all.

just visiting said...

Grasshopper is a wise soul.

Grasshopper said...

@PVW and JV…

Thank you both for the kind words….

Grasshopper

Bob Wallace said...

"You can glean some pearls of wisdom sometimes from the manosphere (or femoshpere) and hear some fresh perspectives worthy of consideration, but none of these should reach sacred cow status – unless you’ve tested them in real life and confirm them to be true."

When it comes to the Manosphere that which is good is not original, and that which is original is not good.

The problem is the lack of understanding of history makes it hard for some to tell which is which.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Bob

You remind me a lot of King A/Matt.

I love the advice and where you come from, but like I tell him... Its far easier to find success in the parts of the 'Sphere you seem to detest than in the ones you are hitting on with classical reading and education. Its far quicker to go out and spend your time learning how to socialize in different environments than it is to read a list of books, be able to understand them, evaluate them, reflect on them, and adapt them into your life. Many men don't have the training or the minds to do so, or have a rough time because their minds aren't used to the language and depth of thought those classical texts require.

Not that I absolve them of learning them. Just that even men like me, involved in the arts and theatre but STILL short on classical training (but ahead of 90% of the population), have a hard time with it. I have a reading list and am working on it. Read a book every week or two depending on the week and length of the book, but it takes a ton of time to do that, where it only takes a few hours a few nights a week go to out and practice some game, meet some women, and develop a rich life story.

Luckily for me, I have time for both.

Bob Wallace said...

@ Leap of a Beta,

"I love the advice and where you come from, but like I tell him... Its far easier to find success in the parts of the 'Sphere you seem to detest than in the ones you are hitting on with classical reading and education,"

It's a lot more than that. I am a huge fan of pop culture. I tell people, you want to see chivalry? Look at any comic-book hero. They're all chivalrous (I still can't believe Superman gave up his citizenship - and what does that say about comic books these days?)

Can you imagine Batman or Wolverine engaging in Game or PUA?

The ones who would do such things are the "lower-class" heroes such as James Bond (in the novels he was sinister and bored, as was Ian Fleming in real life). The more middle-class ones, such as John D. MacDonald's Travis MeGee, was a knight errant who never used Game, but women always hit on him (which I guess would make him a Sigma). He spent a lot of his time defending and helping damaged women (and he killed a lot of people, all of whom deserved it).

I suggest to people, look at the difference between Harry Potter (mostly an effeminate wimp) and Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was bigger in his day than Rowling and Stephen King combined (Burroughs created Tarzan).

All of archetypes of today have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. They run back to Beowulf and Grendel, or even further.

People don't know these things anymore. I've seen men who can quote from memory what an Alpha, Beta, etc. is, but when I've asked them if they know the word "virtue" really means "the powers of men" they don't know.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Bob
Yes, I realize all that. I've read enough of the classical greek, Shakespearean, Italian, and French plays that it's easy to see those points. What I, personally, am lacking is in the areas of philosophy and political essays.

What I'm saying though, is that even with the education that I have, I still have a hard time with such works as Aristotle, Plato, Hume, or Hobbs.

It also requires wanting to go through a long process of growth in all areas of your life, where most men see specific problems and want to tackle those specifics. Issues with women. A lack of leadership in a specific area. Those are easier and faster to fix with modern writings - whether it be on game or a book on leadership and growth. I personally have done both of those because I knew I needed a quick splint to fix what was broken before going back and doing some real intense and thorough growth and healing.

Because that's what the old classics don't have. An easy, "if you need to fix this, do this" approach. Hell, even then it's not easy. But most men are looking at their life and seeing a sinking ship. They're patching it up as best they can. Telling them they need a new mast and to plot a new course while they're rushing to keep from drowning isn't going to benefit anyone.

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

"...and thus ST is putting herself in contortions over what might never even become an issue for her in her dating life."

Hahahahaha!
It does seem like that, doesn't it?
But I really do beleieve that we erroneously think the offline world is full of Blue Pill men and Blue Pill men only. I believe that there many more Red Pill-minded men than are actually commenting on Manosphere blogs. They are just solitary creatures, so we don't know what they are thinking...

I might well face this issue in my dating life, PVW. In any case, the specific issue of pre-nups might rear its ugly head with no prompting from me. I doubt I will be allowed to get married without a pre-Cana class, being Catholic. They tend to mention things like this at such classes, no?
To be honest, having heard what everyone else has to say about this subject I am back to being 'undecided' about it.
Of course, if I am marrying someone and I do offer a pre-nup and he does what Grasshopper would do and hugs me, saying 'no, let's not do that', I would be delighted because it shows me he trusts me, something I crave. But then I would go behind his back and get one done anyway, because I am like that...
And then there would now be a weird trust issue going on - but in reverse!

See? I should just stay away from this subject :-)

Lonely Himalayan Bear said...

I am beginning to develop a liking for the sanctuary. Quite some snippets of wisdom to be found around here!

I'd address the first issue of pre-nups in this post.

@Bellita sums it up well:

"It's a Catch-22, isn't it? A woman refusing to sign a prenup is a red flag to a man. A man insisting on a prenup is a red flag to a woman."

This is true for a large part. Dare I say, this mindset prevails more in some circles than others.
I, for one, know a lot of women who understand the SMP well enough not to take a man's insistence on a pre-nup as a red flag.

In fact in the current scenario, a man who does not insist on a well-drafted pre-nup would be a simpleton in my opinion and that of many other men. Not that it should be a factor influencing his marital decision, but just saying it as it is. A man needs a safety net of some sorts BECAUSE of the socio-legal framework.

So strong are the state-governed forces-of-institutionalised-misandry threatening to destroy his being that I think it takes the woman he's marrying (and her supposedly noble intentions) completely out of the equation. Forget about protecting her delicate sensibilites for a moment and switch on to survival mode, brother!
Even a pre-nup is not a complete guarantee and men worldwide, particularly in the Anglosphere, would do well to remember that. Get other more reliable "safety nets"; videocameras in your bedroom, if you must :-)

But seriously, there is one more point I'd like to bring to the floor. Throughout the course of these comments a pre-nup has been presented as a male prerogative that only looks out for the man's needs and interests. Pre-nup is not meant exclusively as a "hypergamy arresting device" despite the fact that it is presented as such in certain Manosphere circles.

Bellita makes an important point, " because I would be too tempted to make the pre-nup all about my own fears".

My question to you, Bellita, is why not? There is nothing wrong with your fear that your future husband may start another enterprise with some other female. It's rightful apprehension and shows that you care about the well-being of your marriage and kids. Do you think the implication that you do not trust him would offend him enough to break the relationship? If the society regards healthy fears as cynicism and paranoia, then we are on the point of no return, IMHO!

So as a general question to you all, why not draft a pre-nup that mutually addresses the male as well as the female partner's rational fears? Why can't it be a healthy way of ensuring that no party wrongs the other badly in the future? I consulted a lawyer friend of mine on this and (according to Dutch Laws), there are quite a few couples that have drafted mutually satisfying pre-nups in the last year. This trend is expected to increase in the future.

Genuine-minded people did not consciously decide to inject a dose of cynicism into heterosexual relationships. But since it's boiled down to this in the current socio-legal clime, why not be practical about it? Horses for courses, people!

ST,
"It is the ultimate accusation of 'sluthood' for a woman"

I would just like to hear if the other women on the forum share SpaceTraveller's opinion on the paternity test? NOT if you offer it voluntarily, but if the man asks you to take it. Would you girls be cool with it? Justvisiting has cleared her stance, but I wish to hear from others too.

I'd gather my thoughts on this "paternity test" issue and respond in a while.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bear,

Glad you like The Sanctuary. There are some extremely insightful people who comment here, yes. I learn from them all the time. Very lucky to have come across them. They provide a very nice antidote to the Blue Pill chaos out there in real life...

Now, I know your question is directed at Bellita and others.

But if I may, I would just like to add something to what I had said earlier, and this comment of Bellita's which you quote reminded me of it:

"...because I would be too tempted to make the pre-nup all about my own fears".

Bellita may have meant by this that she would worry about the possibility of her futur husband abandoning her eg. by having another family with a mistress.
Yes, I also have this fear, ultimately. I think deep down, all women do.
But I don't place much importance on this fear of mine. (Perhaps I should!!!)

The reason I would offer a pre-nup would be because I am extremely keen (especially nowadays having swallowed the Red Pill and having heard horror stories that circulate on The Manosphere) to show my willingness to be fair, knowing that things are stacked against men in a way that did not exist in my parents' or grandparents' time. In this sense, a pre-nup also becomes about MY fears (fear of not being trusted by the man I wish to marry) but not in the same way as Bellita sees it. I think PVW correctly picked up on this recurring fear of mine, bless her :-)

What's common to both Bellita and I is the use of a pre-nup as a proxy for our individual (and very different) fears.
It is with this thought in mind that I am beginning to see that it would not really healthy for me to bring this topic up should I ever marry. It opens up too much of a 'Pandora's box' that I am not sure I could handle...
Too scary for me.
And yet I know it WILL come up in one form or another.

I really hate to have my fears exposed. And I hate to appear 'naked' before anyone, even figuratively. (I address these issues in the posts 'What's in the bag?' and 'In to me see').

I guess everyone else is in the same boat though...or is this phenomenon unique to introverts?

I need (and like) to work on my fears...alone.
Until I am done, I guess I am not ready to marry anyone :-(

And when I am, I guess he will really need to be another introvert :-)

Anonymous said...

Just a quick note about pre-nups... my eldest grandson made the mistake of mentioning his trust fund to certain females of his age group, this past school year. He has seen direct evidence of hypergamy at the age of 13, and even more evidence of females loving money far more than any human being, excepting themselves.

When he told me this, I also explained 'revocable trust' so that he understood that the trust is for him and his siblings, not for their future ex-spouses. In the event of children, the trust is for THEM, as well.

As I have said before, this and other questions have caused me to learn a great deal about the current status of male-female interrelations.

None of my grandchildren will marry without a pre-nup, else their names are removed from the trust. It's not just them I want to protect, it's ALL of them. I could have set it up as individual trusts for each child and grandchild, but then the total income would be less than half of the total when all added together. It takes money to make money, as they say.

I wanted no part of controlling my children past adulthood, nor do I want any part of doing so with my grandchildren. But, I feel I have the right to pass on some of the money I made, in such a way that removes most risk from the whole idea... and most of the taxes, too.

The eldest already knows about pre-nups, we've just had another huge talk while hunting for elk, about manhood and about all sorts of things... but mostly about manhood.

He said, "Grampa, I just want to make sure my kids have the same access to college and higher education and buying a house, that you're giving me, so yeah, making sure that no one can touch the trust money is cool by me."

I was never prouder.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

Wow, NC,

You are discussing pre-nups with a 13 year old?

Not that I blame you! Red Pill wisdome needs to be dished out in the teen years, so that by the time a boy or girl is physically developed enough to enter the SMP, they are already clued up about what could go wrong.

So, bravo to you...
But at the same time, this 'loss of innocence' saddens me a bit...
but I'll get over it.

Anonymous said...

You discuss what you have to discuss. I never learned about pre-nups until I was an adult, but I was born into a dirt poor farming family. They just didn't enter into the education my Grandfather gave me.

Like every generation for the past 5000 years, the next generation from mine has it differently, and their children will have it differently from them. All I can do is prepare them as best I can, including money and accumulated wisdom.

What they do with both, is up to them.

The Navy Corpsman

Bellita said...

@NC
Coincidentally, just last night, I had dinner with a friend of mine is a lawyer, and I asked her how many pre-nups she has helped to draft.

"Five," she said.

I continued: "Which partner usually brings it up first? The man or the woman?"

"Neither. It's the parents."

She went on to explain that when the inheritance is going to be substantial, the parents want to make sure it is protected.

Bellita said...

@LHB
Do you think the implication that you do not trust him would offend him enough to break the relationship?

First of all, I think I'm more worried that the discovery of how cold-blooded I can be would turn him off enough to kill actual attraction. ;)

Secondly, I think that if I did not trust a man to be faithful to his vows without a pre-nup, I probably wouldn't marry him anyway. And to be fair about it, I don't think a man should marry a woman who is so fearful (note: not sensible, but fearful) that she will give a pre-nup more weight than his character. To paraphrase JV's metaphor, if a woman needs to wrap herself in nerf before she enters the game, then she's hardly ready for the big leagues.

Something else my aforementioned lawyer friend said to me was: "If the marriage works out, the pre-nup has the value of toilet paper. If the marriage blows up, the pre-nup is like gold."

I hope my future fiancee and I would be able to have realistic, cool-headed discussions about "worst case scenarios" in which neither of us comes out smelling like roses. That is, I hope my future fiancee and I will both be partners for whom any pre-nup will have the value of toilet paper.

Anonymous said...

Bellita said...

"@NC
Coincidentally, just last night, I had dinner with a friend of mine is a lawyer, and I asked her how many pre-nups she has helped to draft.

"Five," she said.

I continued: "Which partner usually brings it up first? The man or the woman?"

"Neither. It's the parents."

She went on to explain that when the inheritance is going to be substantial, the parents want to make sure it is protected. "

Indeed. Both my sons chose fairly well, and both daughters-in-law signed on the dotted line. Now that both my boys have kids, everything is going along quite well, in MY estimation. I told both boys, "Your marriage is yours, and it's up to you to make it work, along with your wife. However, since I created the family trust, I get to make sure it will continue to exist for both of you, and any kids you have. "

Both my daughters-in-law are quite smart... they realize a divorce would, even if they got the pre-nup nulled, end with everyone having less money. The ONLY people that do better in a divorce are the lawyers and the judges in family court.

I should point out, both my daughters-in-law also know that if my sons commit abuse, I'LL be the one teaching lessons. By now, they're not daughters-in-law, they're daughters-in-truth. I taught my boys not to hit a lady, but if she hits him first, she's no lady.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

Interesting!

But who's parents? The man's or the woman's?

Assuming they are both equally rich, I imagine it is the woman's parents who might be more protective in this way?

A man who has made hs own money prior to marriage will be nervous, sure...
But the rich parents of a woman about to marry a pauper would be infinitely more worried, I should imagine!

In any case I don't imagine that would be a common scenario in the near-furure...
With some of us not even close to marriage until we are old enough to be grandparents ourselves (aherm! speak for yourself, ST!) we might have lost one or both parents by the time we get to shuffle up to that altar...so the chances of parents having any say in our marriages might be slim.
In fact a pre-nup may be more about who gets custody of the ageing parents than about money!
Lol.

"Secondly, I think that if I did not trust a man to be faithful to his vows without a pre-nup, I probably wouldn't marry him anyway."

Yup. This is why I know not to dwell on the fear of abandonement, because I know that if I suspect a cheating streak in a man, I would NOT be thinking about marrying him.
So I concentrate instead on 'Can he trust me ?
And the reason I am willing to give him a bit of slack in this regard is that I know jolly well that should something go wrong, HE will be the one to pay heavily (literally)...Every man must know by now about the crazy divorce laws...even Blue Pill men.
So yes, I do expect not to be trusted too much no matter how much I protest my innocence. However, (and I realise that this could be used against me to 'Dread Game' me), given that I shall try to provide evidence to the contrary, as in, 'pick me! pick me! I am not like those other money-grabbing wenches!' I shall feel hurt if my efforts go unappreciated. It would be like trying to run up a down-escalator...
Not fun. If I am made to feel that whatever I do is not enough, soon I shall start to believe that I am really not enough.
And I would hate to get to that point. For this is usually the point of no return, no? I wouldn't want my marriage to be over before it begins because of a silly pre-nup!
There is one way to bypass the whole notion of pre-nups...
And that is to presume that you will live a very simple life. That way, marriage is more about the experience than about money...
But will this work in practice?

Spacetraveller said...

NC,

I LOVE how you call your sons' wives 'daughters-in-truth'!

Honestly, that is so nice!
Do they call you Dad, as opposed to 'father-in-law'?

All the women who married my uncles called my grandparents 'Mum' and 'Dad', with the exception of one. And she was the one who divorce-raped my uncle...
It's quite telling, isn't it? I have noticed this trend...

Sure, it's not scientific proof of anything, but one could say the signs were there...

Bellita said...

@ST
The man's or the woman's?

I did not ask, but until I can, I will hazard a guess that the sex of the child does not actually matter. Knowing what I do about my country's culture, I'd say the parents don't care so much about protecting their children as they do about protecting their grandchildren.

The elementary school I went to was one of the "poshest" ones in the whole country. Most of the girls there were from families that had "old money" and many of them had been legally adopted by their grandparents. The objective was the same: the grandparents wanted to make sure the inheritance would be passed on to the youngest generation. But despite the service to tradition, this approach was a real novelty!

These days, though, it is no longer "in fashion." On the other hand, the age of the pre-nup seems to have dawned!

I wonder what will come next . . . or whether the next generation of grandparents will be as protective of the family inheritance as the past two have been!

Spacetraveller said...

Ah I see, Bell.

Kind of what NC is doing...

"...or whether the next generation of grandparents will be as protective of the family inheritance as the past two have been!"

Have you heard the term SKI?
Spending the kids' inheritance?

Nowadays, grandparents are not saving up for ANY generation after them - neither the kids nor the gandkids. They are spending all their cash before they exit this world, apparently. Is this a uniquely British thing?

Examples:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2020899/Meet-new-SKI-set-Thats-Spending-Kids-Inheritance-sports-cars-luxury-holidays-offspring-struggle-make-ends-meet.html

http://www.50plus.com/money/spending-the-kids-inheritance-guilt-free/2585/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3493641.stm


So it's not just men GTOW, is it?
Now, it's also yer parents GTOW and spending ya inheritance!

Hahahahahahaha!

God, life is tough...
:-)


just visiting said...

I know that the men reading this blog might be a bit put off by my stance on pre nups.I've given my reasons above. With out going into a lot of detail (Because it would be long and convoluted) I have reasons to fear ever having a man share my finances or property ever again. Part of my decision not to have a pre nup is to move forward and not in fear. I would owe that much to anyone that I would marry.

Spacetraveller said...

JV,

Forgive me, but I am confused as to your stance on this.
Do you mean you WOULD have a pre-nup to protect yourself or that you would NOT have one to protect him?
I can see how a previous bad experience can colour one's view on this sort of thing.
I really hope it is possible to move forward from a betrayal of trust. Sure, we have all been there, but I suspect some of us have had it worse than others...

The more I think about this, the more this whole topic gets confusing!

More and more, I am begnning to see the wisdom in Bell's comment that one should not forget that marriage is a scared bond and not just a business contract.
Maybe that's incredibly naïve, but I really do prefer naïvety to confusion.

just visiting said...

No, I would not have a pre nup. I wont make decisions based in fear. You see, it's not just men who would find pre nups attractive. But, if I presented a prenup to a man, I'm basing that on fear. Fear of what might happen. And since I've lived through the worst scenerio, it would be reinforcing a trauma.

I would not enter a marriage with that kind of baggage. He gets all of me, and that includes my worldly possesions and or earning power. I acknowledge the risk, and proceed forward.



Bellita said...

JV makes a very good point.

When you insist on a pre-nup, aren't you holding back? And if you insist on holding back, isn't that a sign that marriage probably isn't for you?

I understand that the laws are stacked against men these days and don't blame any man for setting up Plan B in case he chooses wrongly, but it's quite the rationalization to think that a woman proves she is a good choice by agreeing to a pre-nup. What happens if the marriage blows up anyway? At what point is a man no longer protecting himself from a deceptive marriage partner but actually dodging full responsibility for his own choices?

Pre-nups can be very reasonable, but they can also be cowardly.

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller said...

"NC,

I LOVE how you call your sons' wives 'daughters-in-truth'!

Honestly, that is so nice!
Do they call you Dad, as opposed to 'father-in-law'?"

Yes, or Papa.

And just visiting, I agree with you, insofar as your choice is yours. If either of my sons chose to marry a woman who refused to sign the pre-nuptial agreement, I would not have a problem with that, at all. However, both my boys knew that would get their name removed from the family trust. Since both my daughters-in-truth signed, that was unnecessary, and both of my sons agree, as do their wives, that pre-nups will be required for all my grandsons and my granddaughter, in order to keep their names as beneficiaries of the trust. Had either of my sons married, had kids and were divorced without a pre-nup, the grandkids would STILL be on the trust.

Believe me when I tell you, the pre-nup that was signed protected everyone, including the ladies that became my daughters-in-truth. I just wanted to make sure the whole family will never go without food, shelter, or other basics of existence. This isn't a family trust the size of the Kennedys, but it is a lot of money from any perspective except perhaps Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. The family trust owns my ranch, both my sons houses, land, and businesses. Nobody drives a Rolls Royce, but every adult has their own car (owned by the trust) and the grandkids have practically everything they could want or need.

The Navy Corpsman

Anonymous said...

Bellita said...

"JV makes a very good point.

When you insist on a pre-nup, aren't you holding back? And if you insist on holding back, isn't that a sign that marriage probably isn't for you?

I understand that the laws are stacked against men these days and don't blame any man for setting up Plan B in case he chooses wrongly, but it's quite the rationalization to think that a woman proves she is a good choice by agreeing to a pre-nup. What happens if the marriage blows up anyway? At what point is a man no longer protecting himself from a deceptive marriage partner but actually dodging full responsibility for his own choices?

Pre-nups can be very reasonable, but they can also be cowardly. "


It can be holding back, but it can also be seen as protecting everyone from rapacious lawyers and divorce courts. Both my daughters-in-truth understand that they can get no more than seven figures in any divorce settlement, and the grandkids will be on the trust, regardless of any divorce. That's not cowardice, that's understanding human nature, hypergamy and protecting against divorce on a whim.

By the way, I also raised my boys to understand that if they cheat on their wives, it will be a cold day in hell before I speak to them again. The agreement also stipulated that if divorce involving one of my sons cheating, the divorce settlement triples for the lady, and that son will lose his part of the trust. Like I said, everyone is protected from lawyers and bad laws. I won't put up with anyone hurting the family, even if a blood relationship exists.

As for what point is a man dodging full responsibility for his life choices... well, considering that pre-nups have been set aside in hundreds of cases, (Paul McCartney anyone?) I'd say the courts in the USA and UK are not allowing that anymore. Pre-nups are a recognition that the government is interfering in marriage to a biased degree that is not present in any other form of contract. Recognizing human behavior and the stark reality of marriage/divorce statistics is perhaps coldly logical, but extremely practical.

This isn't about choosing badly, or rationalization of pre-nuptial agreements. It's about keeping the government AND lawyers from getting their hands on our family money, it's about being decent honest human beings that know that a divorce does NOT have to be full of hatred or revenge. Since the family trust involves everyone in the family, a person choosing to leave the family also leaves the trust. Simple as that.

The Navy Corpsman

just visiting said...

You make valid points NC. But I think that this falls under the heading of stewardship, which I actually have a lot of respect for. It's from a place of love and paternal protection for one's continuing line.

How to reconcile that with the current climate of hostility toward child support? And keep in mind, I do not take a penny in child support.

Somewhere in all of this, I have to be able to take in the measure of a man and the strength of his commitment. As well as his ability to acknowledge the strength and worth of mine.





Bellita said...

@NC
I have no disagreement with anything you have said insofar as it relates to family inheritance and government interference. But if the pre-nup is meant to be a shield against the person you're marrying, then you probably shouldn't marry that person. Being "brave" enough to do it only because of a pre-nup does not count.

Spacetraveller said...

Wow, Bellita, NC and JV,

You all make such compelling arguments. There is nothing I say against any of what you guys have said, event though you have opposing views on this!

Bell, your point about cowardice struck a chord with me inasmuch as I would definitely be coming from a place of fear however I approacha pre-nup.
And if I choose to avoid a pre-nup, it would ALSO be an act of cowardice because I would be avoiding an 'uncomfortable' topic.
My lack of bravery has really been exposed on this thread, I have to say.

I don't know what to say or do about that.
Except...back to the drawing board.
Hopefully I can work this one out in my head before I am faced with it in real life...


Bellita said...

@ST
I'm regretting the use of the word "cowardice." I chose it to reflect the place of fear I would be coming from if I demanded a pre-nup, but I probably shouldn't have projected it onto everyone. Having said that, it's true that if you fear your potential spouse so much that you feel you need a pre-nup for extra protection, that's probably one of those "features, not bugs" that you should listen to. In that case, it would be better to end the relationship than to rationalize that a pre-nup would make it better.

I've also been thinking about my friend's comment that a pre-nup is either toilet paper or gold. It has helped me clarify that what I'm aiming for is a marriage in which a pre-nup would be toilet paper. That would be one in which the family comes first--before money or anyone's "haaaappiness." I think that if this were already in the "unwritten constitution" of the relationship, I wouldn't mind formalizing it in writing, aka a pre-nup.

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

"That would be one in which the family comes first--before money or anyone's "haaaappiness." I think that if this were already in the "unwritten constitution" of the relationship, I wouldn't mind formalizing it in writing, aka a pre-nup."

Yes, I think this is what NC is getting at in his idea of a pre-nup. (Please correct me if I am wrong, NC!).

This is a truly noble way of organising things.

I like JV's use of the word 'stewardship' to describe this...

Anonymous said...

just visiting said...

"You make valid points NC. But I think that this falls under the heading of stewardship, which I actually have a lot of respect for. It's from a place of love and paternal protection for one's continuing line.

How to reconcile that with the current climate of hostility toward child support? And keep in mind, I do not take a penny in child support."

I don't think the climate is hostile towards child support, but rather the debtor's prison that happens when a man loses his job and no longer is able to make the payments. Also, more than a few anecdotes exist where a woman is clearly using child support payments to support a drug habit, not the child.

I know of no decent responsible men who have ANY problem supporting their children after a divorce. What they object to is misuse of the payments, and effectively imprisoning them for life, making it impossible to support their child!

I am unaware of any other hostility, except as regards family court, so feel free to clue me in, if I am not getting it.

But, let us be completely truthful, here. There do exist men, and women, who feel that the court has no right to take their money to support their child. Since 90+% of child support is paid by men, therefore 90+% of deadbeat parents are male.

Words fail me, in an attempt to express my opinion of Jerry Springer TV show fans.

The Navy Corpsman

Anonymous said...

Bellita said...

"@NC
I have no disagreement with anything you have said insofar as it relates to family inheritance and government interference. But if the pre-nup is meant to be a shield against the person you're marrying, then you probably shouldn't marry that person. Being "brave" enough to do it only because of a pre-nup does not count."

If a pre-nup is only to keep a future ex-spouse from taking 50% of your money, then neither she, nor me, are worth marrying.

The Navy Corpsman

Anonymous said...

Here's the real shocker, Spacetraveler, Bellita and just visiting:

In a little over 16 months, my position as the 'head' of the trust will be over, and both my sons AND my daughters-in-truth will become the new board. I've been teaching them all about safe investments, we didn't have a single share of the housing crash, but we sure lost money in the depression that has followed.

My family has had knowledge and discussion of 'Family First' since the boys were still in diapers. The ONLY person who actually was 'trusted' to be fully involved from day one, was and is my wife. We've talked about how easy it would have been for her to grab 50% and run, but as I have said many times in comments on this blog, I am damned lucky. She did very well in her chosen field, but I was also lucky enough to be in software during the 1990s.

Consequently, this family is set, and my sons and their wives will actually have a difficult time if they try to lose money. It's just not set up to lose money. Both my sons have their own businesses, one daughter works, one does not. The trust owns it all, so we all own it all, and all for one, to quote Dumas.

And lest this sound like a horror story from the evil patriarchal days, I hasten to assure you, if I cheat on my wife, my ass is thrown out of the trust as well. If I abuse my wife, or children, I am out of the family. I set the trust up so that it is semi-independent, and automatic penalties happen for a very few acts of anti-family cohesion.

And with all due respect: My family IS my haaaaaapiness. I may come across as sorta mellow Mr Decent Guy, but the reality is that everything I have done in my lifetime, was for the benefit of all my family. I'll kill to protect them, and I'll die to save them. But, as I mentioned before, it's far far better to live for them.

The Navy Corpsman

Bellita said...

@NC
I may come across as sorta mellow Mr Decent Guy

Um, no, you don't. :) I often have to reread your comments because you sound angry and aggressive to me. This includes the one right above this one, which made me wonder what I had said to make you so defensive when I was basically agreeing with you. (I can't speak for ST or JV, of course.) Now I have to wonder how I sound to you. I'm really not trying to fight you about pre-nups or to insult your family.

Missing tone, inflection, facial exprssions and body language on the Internet means I'm often just guessing.

just visiting said...

NC

Yes, there's basic agreement with you. Not trying to insult you, or your family.

Spacetraveller said...

@ NC,

Yes, I was agreeing with your nice and tidy way of approaching this topic, for your family's welfare.

I am not sure how I would broach this business, should I reach this bridge in my own life.

But thanks for the insights, everyone.
Definitely food for thought...

Anonymous said...

Bellita said...

"@NC
I may come across as sorta mellow Mr Decent Guy

Um, no, you don't. I often have to reread your comments because you sound angry and aggressive to me. "

Don't mean to sound angry, more sarcastic... But the 'mellow Mr Decent Guy' was probably over the top in sarcasm, coming across as serious commentary.

You didn't say anything that made me defensive, I was agreeing with you, as well. I'll keep an eye on my sarcasm ratio in future comments.

Guess I am channeling my inner random Greek letter. I still want to be an upsilon.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

@ NC,

Up silon?

Hahahahaha!
This reminds me of Bellita's Type C blood!
:-)