Prenups

[Zuckman]

Why get married at all?

 

I personally see no advantage in legally pronouncing your monogamous relationship to the government.

 

Seeing how the divorce rate is at an all-time high and is climbing, coupled with a legal system that is severely skewed towards women in divorce cases, what you have is an overall high-risk, low-return investment(worse for men than for women, but a cakewalk for neither sex)

 

Personally, I see no reason to legally declare marriage other than tax purposes. And to me, the risks just aren't worth it.

 

If love is shared between two people, marriage should be unnecessary. Should the relationship end, neither side should be punished in the long term.

 

On an interesting note, here is an essay that attempts to draw parallels between marriage and prostitution.

 

 

http://www.iies.su.se/seminars/papers/Edlund.pdf

 

 

I totally agree. Marriage is simply a business merger nowadays.

 

I don't believe a marriage is necessary to show your union. However, I know that almost ALL women want to shop for their dress, plan their wedding day, show off to their friends, etc. It would be very hard to convince my girlfriend not to marry!...If I do, I'll get the prenup though

 

Zuck

[Sheena815]

Yeah I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure prenups protect only existing assets, not anything that's earned during marriage. So for most people, this wouldn't come in to play until several years after residency when your debt is paid off.

 

Well, crap. There goes my entire plan.

 

Personally, I see no reason to legally declare marriage other than tax purposes. And to me, the risks just aren't worth it.

 

If love is shared between two people, marriage should be unnecessary. Should the relationship end, neither side should be punished in the long term.

 

I tend to agree with this sentiment. It can have nice legal perks (like the tax stuff), but to me its not necessary per say. I think its a nice symbolic gesture though, and I'm happy to do it, and do want to, for the symbolic meaning it has to me.

[lostintime]

Meh I have seriously considered elope. If I can have my way, my wedding will be < 20 people. I don't want to be a Bridezilla!

[BlackJack]

All I can say to that is yikes! I'm damn glad I'm not your girlfriend... not that I ever would be, with that attitude. Its a fine choice if its a woman's (or man's) choice, but to actually expect that? You're going to need to find a woman who is very submissive/ passive/ deeply socially/ religiously conservative if you want her to be okay with that kind of thinking.

 

I don't mean to be combative or anything, but I just cannot stand it when men "expect" their wives to be stay-at-home moms.

 

I do not think this is a bad thing to expect. Any man could retort your statment with "I hate it when a woman expects me to work for a living!".

 

To be insulted by Wolvenstar's desire for a woman who will raise his kids is kind of a blatant trigger-happy feminista response that flies in the face of logic and free speech.

 

I expect to work hard for a living.

 

If I ever have children, I would want them to be raised by their mother. I do not want to stay home and raise them. This is a personal choice, and is the way I would want to live my life.

 

I do not want nannys and babysitters raising my kids. I want my family to be a strong, loving unit, not a moneymaking professional machine who has children solely for the purpose of procreation and membership to the local PTA.

 

Conversely, I cannot force a woman to raise the children. Thus, a requirement of mine for long-term cohabitation and child rearing is that the woman WANTS to raise the children more than work. I do not see any problem with that.

[Sheena815]

Conversely, I cannot force a woman to raise the children. Thus, a requirement of mine for long-term cohabitation and child rearing is that the woman WANTS to raise the children more than work. I do not see any problem with that.

 

No, if both people are happy with the arrangement, its fine. But I would seriously advise you to make your expectations known early in any relationship you see yourself getting serious about. Because there are a lot of women out there who will not be happy about that, and it would be best if they know your opinions early on.

 

I do not think this is a bad thing to expect. Any man could retort your statment with "I hate it when a woman expects me to work for a living!".

 

To be insulted by Wolvenstar's desire for a woman who will raise his kids is kind of a blatant trigger-happy feminista response that flies in the face of logic and free speech.

 

I certainly don't "expect" any man I marry to work for a living, I wouldn't like that statement any more. I am fine with him doing whatever makes him happy. Wolvenstar is free to state his opinion, I never said he shouldn't have it or express it, but I am ALSO free to be offended by the nature of it.

 

I do find it offensive to "expect" ones partner to make any sort of huge life-changing decisions for them (such as whether or not to work). Its fine if you want it, but I would not be pleased with anyone expecting anything of that nature of me, and certainly do not expect it of them.

[SpanishFly]

Well first off not all attractive women are dumb. Thirdly why should it be wrong for a guy to want to marry a woman who is a housewife? If i get married, I expect my wife to stay at home with the kids...although I will concede to working less hours as well, but it's for the kids.

 

lol ok when did I say that the airhead was hot? just b/c your a bimbo does not = attractive, so thats an assumption on your part, I've met many many girls who are neither attractive nor intelligent. Personally, I get discriminated against a lot as far as first impressions go, being in science and working in an environment where its dominated by males and females that, well don't really care so much about their appearance, so I definitely don't stereotype and assume that all good looking girls are stupid. THat was not my point at all, and who said that the woman who stays at home and spends her time at the spa is a good housewife? Theres a difference between a caretaker and a housewife IMO. Being a mother is not an easy job and I in no way look down upon it: again that was not my point, but maybe I didn't explain myself very well.

 

What!? Can't a guy create a little job security? lol.

haha ok but can i get in on this, because apparently this whole doctor thing costs a lot of money.

 

My parents have mentioned many times that I should find someone who earns more than me *rolls eyes*.

 

a doctor I used to work with told me to marry a sugar daddy so he could pay for my med school

(his very rich wife paid his entire tuition).

 

 

Begaster,

 

Not true whatsoever. The reason why men tend to be threatened by women MORE ambitious than them is because men 'instinctively' know that women like to date 'up'. So if a man is not 'higher' than them, they feel threatened that the women will cheat on them - or break up and go to someone higher.

Begaster, I find it cool that you like women more ambitious than you. However, you are more a minority.

 

As much as I hate to admit it, this makes a lot of sense because your right, women have been programmed to find a man who can "take care of her"...I'm just hoping that we're moving past this mentality as more and more women begin to take care of themselves.

 

However, I think this argument is probably more true if the couple has a similar career because then, its almost as if your in direct competition with your spouse (my parents are both doctors so I've seen this tug of war lol) or if the discrepancy between what they earn is very large. Also, I think that it depends on what the person considers to be "up", some people measure that in $, others in intellect. Honestly, I think most women are comfortable making more money than their spouse, I think its the man that tends to have the problem. But then again, who am i to talk, I want to marry an athlete who earns upwards of $150,000 grand a week

[BlackJack]

Meh I have seriously considered elope. If I can have my way, my wedding will be < 20 people. I don't want to be a Bridezilla!

 

I agree.

 

The entire concept of marriage has been commercialized to the point of it becoming meaningless.

 

The diamond-ring engagement ritual is the result of one of the best, if not THE best, ad campaigns. DeBeers equated diamond rings with engagment and monopolized the industry - diamonds are not rare, at all - they're CARBON!!!. But really, aside from herd mentality, why do you need a diamond ring?(if you're a bank-robber or super spy who tends to get trapped in rooms that have glass windows, please don't answer)

 

The wedding industry is a billion-dollar business. The over-the-top wedding with thousands of guests, a cake the size of your house, and personalized palladium-stained cutlery is exactly what wedding companies want you to desire - since this "epic wedding" is desired by most if not all brides in North America, what you have is HUGE profits that will not end anytime soon due to the penetration of this thinking into our general culture and rituals.

 

If you're going to get married, have a nice little party with your family and closest friends on a beach somewhere. Nothing excessive or crazy fancy.

 

Also, just have the party. Do not make it legally recognized. That way, if things go south in the future, neither party loses or gains anything.

[SpanishFly]

Meh I have seriously considered elope. If I can have my way, my wedding will be < 20 people. I don't want to be a Bridezilla!

 

me too! I have no intention on having a huge wedding, I saw that with my older sister and its definitely not for me! I'd much rather spend that money traveling.

[lostintime]

Yeah!! Eloping would be cool. I would do like a mini-world tour.

 

But hey, I heard you make more money with weddings than spend. Maybe I'll have a wedding to get the money so I can travel with it. HA.

 

But honestly...why the hell would you wanna be uncomfortable in some stuffy fancy schmancy hotel room with all these people you don't even care about? (I'm talking about all these rich people with > 300 guests....I'm sure ALL their guests care SO much about them).

[The_B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_B

I guess for me' date='… ignorance is bliss.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by supafield

I agree completely

 

[/quote']

omfg wtf is wrong with you people..

 

Ummm we choose to be happy and not worry about what COULD happen. I also don't carry a gun, don't tape my windows thinking about possible bird flu, and I drive on the highway, despite my age (leading killer for my age catergory ). Sorry for being happily married with no end in sight and thinking the best in the concept of marriage.

 

 

....wait, no I'm not

[BlackJack]

Ummm we choose to be happy and not worry about what COULD happen. I also don't carry a gun, don't tape my windows thinking about possible bird flu, and I drive on the highway, despite my age (leading killer for my age catergory ). Sorry for being happily married with no end in sight and thinking the best in the concept of marriage.

 

 

....wait, no I'm not

 

That is a cute argument, but realistically your chances of getting shot, getting bird flu, and being in a car wreck are far less than 50% each. Probably less than 50% combined too.

 

Also, I'm sure you don't live in the slums or in population-dense Asia, and you wear a seatbelt too.

Divorce on the other hand is a coin-toss. And we know nothing about how happy the marriages that don't end in divorce are...

 

Think of a prenup as a marriage seatbelt.

[clive]

Ummm we choose to be happy and not worry about what COULD happen. I also don't carry a gun, don't tape my windows thinking about possible bird flu, and I drive on the highway, despite my age (leading killer for my age catergory ). Sorry for being happily married with no end in sight and thinking the best in the concept of marriage.

 

 

....wait, no I'm not

 

Do you have car insurance? Do you have life insurance?

[clive]

Maybe you didn't mean to offend, but it's kind of hard to interpret what you said in a good way! A women who is ambitious & makes alot of money is more like a man to you??? Really... what sort of stereotype is that? Without wanting to start any kind of battle, I must say that sounded pretty sexist to me. You can say you're not attracted to ambitious women, or women who make more $ than you, that's totally your call. But to say that brings them closer to being a man, IMO, is quite offensive. You might not have meant it in the sense that it's getting interpreted, but it's a touchy subject for a comment phrased like that...

 

I don't think it's necessarily sexist. It is very common in many mammals that high status males (high status is associated with access to more resources) mate more often and with a greater variety of females than do lower ranking males. Since this mean lower ranking males mate less often and with less females, we can infer that males often mate with lower ranking females more often on average and that females mate with higher ranking males most of the time and that this is due to instinctive mechanisms.

[lostintime]

Well weddings are a huge deal for people who are reilgious...there's a whole ritual/ceremony and stuff.

[The Law]

Do you have car insurance? Do you have life insurance?

 

Of course it's more practical to protect yourself. Everyone is obviously entitled to do what they want. Some people, however, are so confident in their marriage that they don't see the need to try to "protect" themselves. Others, don't even think about this issue.

 

Every situation is different. If I cared about someone so much, that I was willing to commit to them for my entire life, I think I would be willing to just take the chance and put my faith in our commitment. I feel like pre-empting the commitment with this "try to protect" myself business is showing a serious lack of faith in our ability to succeed as a couple. Your analogy to "life insurance" is a powerful one, and I agree - it makes so much more practical sense to have it. The thing is, there's nothing "rational" about marriage - committing to a partner for your entire lives?? It's crazy! You better be damn sure you know what you are getting yourself into before taking that plunge.

 

At the same time, if you and your partner discuss it and feel comfortable with it - then sure, sign a prenup. I think I'd like to have more faith in my marriage, and yes, there is a major risk involved - but, most likely, it would be one that I'd be willing to take. Maybe this line of thinking will come to bite me in the ass in the future.

[Sheena815]

Just to point out, the chance of a divorce is probably not 50%, that is an American figure (and their divorce rate is higher) and it is, even for them, actually 44%.

 

Plus, there are differences in divorce rates depending on one's socioeconomic status. And it is an inverse correlation (just did a quick google to conform this). I never thought that my own chance for divorce would be 1 in 2, as intuitively I figured that as someone who wont get married until I've been with the person for years and thought long and hard about it, discussed all issues pertaining to lifestyle, children, finances, etc in depth, I always figured that would give me a better shot than, say, your stereotypical teenage shotgun wedding (not that those cannot work too).

 

Its kind of like applying for medical school. When you look a the total number of applicants vs. those that get in, the acceptance rate looks pretty abysmal (like around 10% I think?) but taking into account that lots of people apply who don't meet the cutoffs for interview, don't have good EC's, etc, I never thought my own chances of getting in somewhere were only 10%.

 

These are overall rates, but they don't necessarily apply at the individual level. Don't get me wrong, I'm a pro-prenup person, just thought I'd point that out.

[radmanjohn]

Yeah I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure prenups protect only existing assets, not anything that's earned during marriage. So for most people, this wouldn't come in to play until several years after residency when your debt is paid off.

 

WRONG!!!

 

You dont have to be rich, nor have assets. A prenup just is a contract that sets out the terms of sepaaration while you and your partner are in good terms. My prenup states, what I pay for, what I keep, and same for my partner. It is very explicit, for example one good say all moneys or investments in "my" name alone are mine and in my partners are his/hers. Also one can specify any or no spousal support...

 

Dont let the legal system guide how you would have wanted to end a relationship.....I am sure most of you will get car insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, this really is an insurance product....and from experience I am recommending it ...

 

John

[supafield]

Lol that 50% stat gets thrown around like it's the end all to an argument...

It is reported as lower in Canada and can differ depending on who you read.

 

Also lost in the stat that is if every divorce can be blamed one way or another (theoretically) you're probably just as likely to be the one responsible for the divorce... in which case if you claim a prenuptial is protecting you from being screwed over in case of a divorce.... well depending on your divorce statistic there is now a 1/4 to a 1/5 chance that a divorce will be initiated your partner or something they did.

 

Furthermore is the endless list of correlational variables out there that can make that stat even lower.....

 

It may still be too high of a chance for some... but it's a lazy argument to say... 50% of marriages end in divorce it only makes sense to get a prenuptial.

 

And as for the car insurance/life insurance quip! Haha Car insurance is legally required of you and not to protect your car but to make sure in the instance you ruin someone else's care they'll be covered. Life Insurance pays others in the event of your death.... which last I heard is inevitable.

Both are meant to protect others... where all of the events this was in response to were to protect himself. (edit: this is in response to clive, I hadn't read john's post before writing this)

 

I again reiterate that I feel for the OP and don't have a problem with someone else getting a prenuptial.

 

That's under the assumption that they have good intent for doing so. Since this thread has started, a lot of people have made good arguments, however it seems with a few that it's much more likely they would use a prenuptial to cover their mistakes rather than protect their assets from someone who doesn't deserve to have them.

 

But hey, this is just a forum... making those kinda judgments takes a lot of extrapolation for on-line text.

[Satsuma]

Ha ha ha, I kind of see that this could apply to some....not sure I agree about it being biological though. Can't blame genes for everything!

 

But my ex-bf of 7 years had dumped me relatively abruptly and when he did....he said "now you can go to med school or do your PhD or whatever you want". Didn`t know why we needed to break up for me to do that. He then hooked up with someone who was 5 years younger than him...and though I never met her, his family and friends all say that she isn`t that attractive and not at all bright, never has much to contribute....even to scrabble! Last I heard they were engaged...they must be married by now, and hopefully they live happily everafter.

 

But I would say he was someone who lacked confidence.

 

My current bf is way more confident and is super supportive of all things that I do and want to do. So I think whoever it was that suggested confidence plays a role, I would tend to agree.

 

 

 

Hey LostinTime,

 

I totally don't mean offence by that at all though. I just want you to know that.

 

Some men are attracted to ambitious money-making women. Actually, a huge study was done with speed dating. It showed that men are attracted to women that are intelligent and ambitious - BUT, the women could not be more intelligent than the man. This fact was MOST important when a man was looking for a long-term partner. If a man found out the woman was more intelligent or ambitious...he would put the woman in the short-term category. I totally agree with the study because I know how men tend to think

 

I think this is largely biological too, not just societal.

 

- Zuck

[Zuckman]

Ha ha ha, I kind of see that this could apply to some....not sure I agree about it being biological though. Can't blame genes for everything!

 

But my ex-bf of 7 years had dumped me relatively abruptly and when he did....he said "now you can go to med school or do your PhD or whatever you want". Didn`t know why we needed to break up for me to do that. He then hooked up with someone who was 5 years younger than him...and though I never met her, his family and friends all say that she isn`t that attractive and not at all bright, never has much to contribute....even to scrabble! Last I heard they were engaged...they must be married by now, and hopefully they live happily everafter.

 

But I would say he was someone who lacked confidence.

 

My current bf is way more confident and is super supportive of all things that I do and want to do. So I think whoever it was that suggested confidence plays a role, I would tend to agree.

 

 

I'm not sure what type of confidence you're suggesting. That would mean most men lack confidence in some way. I'm not sure about this one though. I wouldn't call it confidence. I think men by nature need their ego's stroked. This is both societal and biological. Men like to be admired as if they've achieved something special. Also I know that I feel an attraction to women who don't spend too much time working outside the home. I think this is a bit biological. It makes sense that someone will have to spend an extra bit of time at home when the kids are born. My girlfriend totally agrees that both parties should do this, but we both agree as well that she'll be home a bit more than I will be.

 

Also, women naturally are attracted to men of high status. This could be societal but for their to be no biological connection is very unlikely. You can see this in all sorts of species and all human cultures. Just this fact alone can show that the opposite can be true for men. That is, men are attracted to women who are of 'lower status' naturally. I think there definitely is a societal role that moulds this behaviour, but I think it all begins biologically.

 

Satsuma, if you were MORE ambitious and MORE intelligent than your previous b/f, I can guarantee you that it would have been an issue for him. The fact that he went for younger and less bright is a totally natural reaction for him. In fact, he feels that he has made a far better choice in a long-term mate. However, since his new woman is LESS physically attractive (in his eyes)...well that's not what most men do.

 

Zuck

[Athina021]

If I ever have children, I would want them to be raised by their mother. I do not want to stay home and raise them. This is a personal choice, and is the way I would want to live my life.

 

I do not want nannys and babysitters raising my kids. I want my family to be a strong, loving unit, not a moneymaking professional machine who has children solely for the purpose of procreation and membership to the local PTA.

 

These two statements seem a little contradictory to me, although I assume you mean you don't want to stay home and raise your children full-time, and make me wonder about your motivation to have children. This all seems a little macho! But I suspect this may change if you do have children and discover that you can't get enough of them!

 

Reading this thread, I realize (as a future physician) I'm very lucky that in my circle, at least, I'd be hard-pressed to find a man who would want me to stay home by virtue of my being female.

 

My boyfriend had always felt he would have more options should I choose a professional career path. Because I'll probably be making good money (even as a GP), he can pretty much do whatever he wants down the road (continue working as a public servant, stay home with kids if we have them, start his own business, etc.).

[Zuckman]

Really? ****, I should be working at Tim Hortons not applying to Med School! HAHA.

 

Honestly, I feel a bit of discomfort whenever I mention med to my boyfriends, neither of which have a career which earns a shabby amount (vet, high school teacher)... so I guess there might be some truth in this!

 

And trust me, whenever men tell you they're going to med school or are a doctor, they won't feel that same discomfort. Men know that their dating potential increases through the roof once they become doctors. But, since you're gonna be a doctor as well, men know that it won't have the same effect on you. Why do you think all the doctors hit on the nurses

 

Zuck

[Julie]

I don't think it's necessarily sexist. It is very common in many mammals that high status males (high status is associated with access to more resources) mate more often and with a greater variety of females than do lower ranking males. Since this mean lower ranking males mate less often and with less females, we can infer that males often mate with lower ranking females more often on average and that females mate with higher ranking males most of the time and that this is due to instinctive mechanisms.

 

Not super sure about your inferences, but that aside... Unless I missed something, this in no way means that women who make $ or are intelligent are "more like men". That's the part of the statement I found sexist. Had he simply said "less attractive to me", it would have been completely different.

[The_B]

Of course it's more practical to protect yourself. Everyone is obviously entitled to do what they want. Some people, however, are so confident in their marriage that they don't see the need to try to "protect" themselves. Others, don't even think about this issue.

 

Every situation is different. If I cared about someone so much, that I was willing to commit to them for my entire life, I think I would be willing to just take the chance and put my faith in our commitment. I feel like pre-empting the commitment with this "try to protect" myself business is showing a serious lack of faith in our ability to succeed as a couple. Your analogy to "life insurance" is a powerful one, and I agree - it makes so much more practical sense to have it. The thing is, there's nothing "rational" about marriage - committing to a partner for your entire lives?? It's crazy! You better be damn sure you know what you are getting yourself into before taking that plunge.

 

At the same time, if you and your partner discuss it and feel comfortable with it - then sure, sign a prenup. I think I'd like to have more faith in my marriage, and yes, there is a major risk involved - but, most likely, it would be one that I'd be willing to take. Maybe this line of thinking will come to bite me in the ass in the future.

 

Well said Law.

 

Also, Prenups aren't akin to life insurance. One is a responsible thing one does to protect the ones they love. The other is a responsible thing people do to protect themselves. My problem here is that you are trying to protect yourself against the very person you are committing to trust/love. I agree with Law, if you can't imagine not taking the risk (and I'll admit, it is a risk), then perhaps you don't feel strongly enough about the person you are about to marry. I'll repeat, I could be wrong, but in matters of love, I prefer to be an optimist, and get burned, then be a pessimist, and not get burned (according to these "stats" it's 50/50....I dispute these stats, as there are so many variables, such as people who marry multiple times driving up the number of failed marriages).

 

And like I said, I guess I'll just live here HAPPY, oblivious to something that could go wrong, instead of adding in an element of fear into my life about the one thing I count on day in and day out for the happiness I get out of it (which is why I got married in the first place).

[Wolvenstar]

Not super sure about your inferences, but that aside... Unless I missed something, this in no way means that women who make $ or are intelligent are "more like men". That's the part of the statement I found sexist. Had he simply said "less attractive to me", it would have been completely different.

 

Well considering sexism is about putting down the other gender, saying that one is more like their gender is saying that the woman is almost identical to the man, so thus they must be equal. Therefore it's not sexist. I think your just offended about him saying that he (and the average guy) isn't attractive to highly ambitious women, or rich ones, and don't know how to express it properly so you pull out the sexist card. I have several female friends who I am very close to, and guys ask me all the time if I am "hitting that up". It confuses me at first because we are so close that I have forgotten that they are female and don't see them as women that I am attracted to. It isn't sexist for a man to decide that he won't look at a woman as a potential mate, it's called personal choice.

 

For example, I would never date an obese woman. An obese woman(men) might call me sexist pig for looking down at them, and not seeing them as attractive, but it is my choice to pick who I don't want to date. Just like it is your choice to wave the sexist flag to make the arguement seem wrong, even though it really isn't (although it could have been worded better I admit). Really he could have said, that a guy will not look at her as a perspective mate, rather than she is more like a man, but it's still not feminist. No woman are losing any rights or equality here.

 

Secondly others have already stated that it is the average for woman to look for a guy whom they feel will protect them. The same (but opposite) is true for guys, We generally are programmed to want to feel that we can take care of and protect our significant other. This isn't true for everyone but it is still the average.

 

So when a man meets a girl who makes more than he does or is more ambitious, it tends to make him feel that she doesn't need protecting, and can hurt his confidence (feels he isn't good enough for her) and make him not look at her as a potential mate. This isn't everyone but just the average. It could also be that the man prefers the more stereotypical view of the man being the primary breadwinner while the wife is more domestic.

 

Sheena815

 

I do not mind that you are offended by my comments. However I am not saying I want this for any religious/political/ridiculus reasons. The most important thing in my life is family, and I do not want a nanny or daycare raising my kids. When I was young my family wasn't well off and both my parents had to work, so i was pretty much raised by different babysitters. Eventually my dad's business flew off the hook, and my mother didn't need to work anymore. However I know from a child's perspective how much it sucks to hardly see your parents.

 

Now I could become the housewife, but my dad managed to instill part of his love of working in me, so I wouldn't be comfortable staying at home full-time. However for the first five years at least of my child's life, I would have drastically reduced work hours so I could still spend alot of time with them as well. Once the kids start getting older (7-10yrs) I would not complain if my wife went back to working part-time 4-5hours everyday, and then full time once the kids reached 16 or so. These numbers are a little arbitrary and it would be changed more after discussing such things with my wife obviously.

 

Honeslty though, while some of the women in my family work part-time most of them don't work at all and are quite happy to stay housewives until the kids grow up. So I see no problem with it, and guys tend to be able to tell if a girl's family or her job is more important to her (at least I tend to be able to). I am not attracted to women who do not put a strong emphasis on family, because it is the most important thing in my life.

 

I find it sad that you think a woman must be submissive, passive or conservative, to want to be a stay at home mother, when that is generally what most women do. One of my good girlfriends (not-dating) is a MMA fighter, and she is only taking college courses so that she won't be a bimbo mother to her kids, when she has them. Now there is nothing submisssive or passive about this woman. It is just a choice of lifestyle.

 

I am not one who is dumb enough to date someone with dreams of running a hospital (or equally ambitious job) and expect her to become a stay at home mother. As i said earlier I tend to date women who would have no problem being a stay at home mom. If I had the money, I would probably only work part-time myself, so both my wife and I would be able to spend loads of time with out kids.

 

Guys just don't go out and pick up random woman and then expect them to suddenly stop being ambitious...most guys anyways, I can not speak for idiots. Besides I think that the fact that both spouses tend to work so much these days is a big part of the reason why divorce rates are so high. (notice how I don't say because women work so much. someone has to be a housewife, and it most often ends up being the female).

 

 

 

 

Spanishfly,

 

I know that wasn't exactly your point, but I had to say something, just in case we had a couple people who suddenly decided to start bashing housewifes/attractive women...lol sounds crazy but I have seen it happen.

 

I love your comment on how alot of marriages now are more like competition between the two spouses, you hit the nail dead on for the biggest factor in divorce rates. I have become very selective with whom I date because alot of women now, are treating relationships like a competition...I won't comment on men because I have never dated one, however it was traditionally the man's role to be a breadwinner, so I can't blame a guy for wanting to stick with thousands of years of tradition. Either way though both spouses really need to find a way to make their marriage a partnership rather than a competition.

 

And of course you can join in on the job security. The mafia is like big family and we love to make it bigger. I dub thee honorary an honorary italian, don't forget to use some italian lingo every now and then. "Mamma Mia!" lol

 

 

As for my wedding, the reason I want a big one, is because I can use it as an excuse to have a family reunion. Comming from a big family I haven't seen some relatives for years (I have enough trouble visiting my aunts, uncles, and 16+ cousins who live near me lol). I was thinking maybe a beach celebration on hawaii or somewhere warm. If my wife isn't adverse to it, I would prefer not to have a catholic/christian/pick-your-sect-of-the-exact-same-crap(no offense intended...well maybe a little) priest do the ceremony.

 

 

 

 

 

Sheena,

 

I dont think money is the driving factor with the higher rates of divorce among wealthier people, I think it tends to be more the attitudes and views that come with having alot of money. Some people just can't hold on to good family values. My family rose from being lower middle-class, to lower upper-class and only one person in my entire family has had a divorce...and her ex-husband is a crack head so can you blame her?

 

 

 

Wow guys I must say though, filling up 5 pages, since the last time i posted on this thread. lol crazy I love debates like this. I hope I didn't miss any anyone who points I wanted to break down. lol