Tom Cruise playing hardball with pre-nuptial

[RB]

Are prenuptial aggreements the death of love and romance?

I mean is it a way out for some folks to capitalise on securing payments and a relish in way of life

I mean it is reported that Katie Holmes will not sign agreements unless Cruise can financially secure her future and the baby's future, the agreement comes with additional clause in her favor I suppose

[crazymf]

Are prenuptial aggreements the death of love and romance?

I mean is it a way out for some folks to capitalise on securing payments and a relish in way of life

I mean it is reported that Katie Holmes will not sign agreements unless Cruise can financially secure her future and the baby's future, the agreement comes with additional clause in her favor I suppose

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, when the most important person to you is yourself beyond all others and your ego is bigger than everything else in your life, prenups make sense. Actors are a bad example to go by. They live in a bubble.

Prenups just preclude the hope of a successful marriage by admitting defeat in advance and sending the message that total commitment isn't there.

[PocketRocket]

Prenups just preclude the hope of a successful marriage by admitting defeat in advance and sending the message that total commitment isn't there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would tend to disagree with this.

In this day and age, more marriages end in divorce than not.

In the case of someone like Cruise, who has a considerable fortune, why risk losing a very large sum in case of divorce.

The same argument you are making could be made in reverse; by fighting the pre-nup, she is in effect saying that she thinks the marriage may well end in divorce, and wants to be able to go after Cruise's money when it does.

Personally, if I was worth $20-million (or more, as is Cruise's case), I would have no problem saying in a pre-nup, "hey, if we divorce, you get $2-mil, no questions asked.

If someone can't get by on that, too bad.

[PocketRocket]

Are prenuptial aggreements the death of love and romance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As per my post above, this could also be argued.

If I'm filthy rich, the way for my prospective bride to show that she's in love with me, and not just my money, is to sign a pre-nup.

[crazymf]

Prenups just preclude the hope of a successful marriage by admitting defeat in advance and sending the message that total commitment isn't there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would tend to disagree with this.

In this day and age, more marriages end in divorce than not.

In the case of someone like Cruise, who has a considerable fortune, why risk losing a very large sum in case of divorce.

The same argument you are making could be made in reverse; by fighting the pre-nup, she is in effect saying that she thinks the marriage may well end in divorce, and wants to be able to go after Cruise's money when it does.

Personally, if I was worth $20-million (or more, as is Cruise's case), I would have no problem saying in a pre-nup, "hey, if we divorce, you get $2-mil, no questions asked.

If someone can't get by on that, too bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So why get married at all then? He can jump from hole to hole, just like a gopher.

[RB]

I don't have the Canadian stats but is some from the US

Men boldly go where women do not, Men feel cheated, women have no regrets.

more men would ask for a prenutial agreement but they will marry a lady even if she did not sign. 32% of the women say they won't sign

Now after a divorce men usually learn quickly about a prenuptial agreement and 25% have regrets while 76% of women have no regrets, the women usually get most of the assets

[Leafless]

crazymf

You wrote- " So why get married at all? He can jump from hole to hole just like a gopher."

This is true but there must be an appeallig stigma attached to marriage that somehow makes one more conventionally appealing.

I don't understand it either!

[crazymf]

Or perhaps it's a sign of prosperity in Hollywood to have many wives. I think it's a sign of screwed up people that can't keep their life together because it's clouded by fame and wealth.

Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy the kind of misery I can enjoy.

I think prenups are a cop out. If you truly have a lot of money and it's more important to you than a long term relationship, then you shouldn't get married at all because you obviously don't have enough love in you for the person to risk it.

On the other hand, prenups level the playing field a bit with the unfair divorce settlements that seem to happen regularly. A marriage vow after all is a life commitment to not divorce.

Why isn't that contract honored?

[PocketRocket]

Or perhaps it's a sign of prosperity in Hollywood to have many wives. I think it's a sign of screwed up people that can't keep their life together because it's clouded by fame and wealth.

Not just Hollywood. The rich and famous everywhere are divorcing.

Come to mention it, the poor and un-famous are doing it too.

It's an epidemic.

Maybe they'll develope a vaccine.

Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy the kind of misery I can enjoy.

Nicely put, and a statement I can get behind.

I think prenups are a cop out. If you truly have a lot of money and it's more important to you than a long term relationship, then you shouldn't get married at all because you obviously don't have enough love in you for the person to risk it.

Your last two words tell the tale. "Risk it".

It's a gamble, and when you've got LOTS to lose, why take the chance???

On the other hand, prenups level the playing field a bit with the unfair divorce settlements that seem to happen regularly. A marriage vow after all is a life commitment to not divorce.

Prenups are also quite regularly fought and, at least in part, overturned.

I don't think anyone who marries Tom Cruise has to worry about being left a pauper in event of divorce.

Why isn't that contract honored?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, probably a couple reasons; being human, people change, and in today's society, divorce is no longer frowned upon the way it used to be.

[crazymf]

Well, probably a couple reasons; being human, people change, and in today's society, divorce is no longer frowned upon the way it used to be.

BING!!!! Only I see it like this:

Being human, people change, and to hell with the spouse. MEMEME. I think that people have to change to make a marriage work and last, not the other way around where people change to be incompatible.

Divorce is no longer frowned upon? It bloody well frowned upon where I come from. Divorce is a failure, period. Only screwed up people get divorced. For better and for worse? I guess people forget to understand that.

I've been married for 23 years and anybody who thinks it's easy should give their head a shake. It's not, and I wouldn't have been single or had different spouses given a chance. You must have qualities that compliment each other and a common goal.

I just shake my head when I hear these idiots getting divorces after a couple years.

Today's society: Is going to hell in a handbasket, fast.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear crazymf,

Today's society: Is going to hell in a handbasket, fast.

I have to agree. I have been married 6 years, my parent are coming up on 55 years. There were times that were rough, but my wife and I are quite honest with each other, and we have found that honestly talking things out makes a hell of a difference.

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what Tom Cruise or anyone in Hollywood does. How could anyone care?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear RB,

Are prenuptial aggreements the death of love and romance?

Very good question. I echo a lot of the sentiment here that the 'me' (greed) factor has ruined society, pre-nuptuals are merely a symptom of it.

[Riverwind]

I think prenups are a cop out. If you truly have a lot of money and it's more important to you than a long term relationship, then you shouldn't get married at all because you obviously don't have enough love in you for the person to risk it.

There is love and there is stupidity. The laws regarding divorce are so biased in favour of women now that a man is at risk of losing half of everything he has earned in his life just because his wife 'get's bored'. He may be completely committed to the relationship and may bend over backwards to make things work but such efforts count for nothing if his wife wants out.

In short, if you have significant assets and are thinking of getting married then you would have to be crazy to not have a prenup. As someone else noted, if your fiancee protests then that is a real sign that your fiancee may not be as committed to you as you want to believe.

[crazymf]

HEY!

Getting married is a major leap of faith on both parts. A prenup is just a way of saying "I'm in control and hold all the cards and am only commiting myself x-much to this marriage"

Not signing a prenup is good judgement.

Divorce laws are a separate subject, not that I disagree they're biased. If there's lots of money involved and the bitch needs a vacation, push her over the side of the ship at night. End of story.

[Renegade]

Not signing a prenup is good judgement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely disagree on this one. Most people who get married have no clue on what their financial commitment is to their partner. It is very true that being "in love" makes you somewhat stupid as you tend not to give things the scrutiny they deserve.

Having a pre-nup provokes a conversation which is best had before marriage, not after it. Both parties should understand clearly and in writing what they are getting into and what they will get should it fall apart. In my view a pre-nup should be MANADATORY for all marriages, that way one party does not see it as a slight if the other party suggests it.

BTW, a pre-nup doesn't necessarily favour one side over the other. It just clearly defines the financial obligations both during and after dissolution of the marriage. Without one, the couple just defaults into one created by legislators which they may or may not agree.

In my view if both parties cannot agree on how things are split should the marriage fail, then they ought not to get married.

[crazymf]

That's what marriage counselling is for.

Prenups merely make the marriage a presumed short term affair.

Think about this; if my wife and I signed a prenup 23 years ago, how much of it might be valid today? Not much, because life and fortunes change drastically in that amount of time. It is like a will in that regard.

[Renegade]

That's what marriage counselling is for.

Don't think so. Marriage councelling is to help both parties determine if the marriage is still viable and if so help address the issues which would lead to a dissolution. It is equally valid for marriage councelling to determine that the marriage is not viable and the parties are better off separate.

In either case it is not about the pre-nup.

Prenups merely make the marriage a presumed short term affair.

Not so. It would foolish to ignore the possiblity that the marriage might dissolve when there is overwhelming evidence that it is a very strong possibility. I'm sure that virtually everyone who entered a marriage did so, on the presumption that theirs would last forever.

You also are not looking at the fact that when a couple gets married they get a marriage contract whether they like it or not. A pre-nup forces them to validate that they agree with the terms and to come to mutually acceptable terms to which they both agree instead of the imposed terms.

Think about this; if my wife and I signed a prenup 23 years ago, how much of it might be valid today? Not much, because life and fortunes change drastically in that amount of time. It is like a will in that regard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A properly written pre-nup WOULD be still valid today as the day it was signed. Are you saying a will which was written 20 years ago is not valid today? In many cases it is.

Let's for example say a man and wife each had assets of $100,000 and signed a pre-nup that the $100,000 assets were theirs alone and not common property. As well they agreed to keep the assets separate and any growth of the assets belonged only to the respective party.

Now let say the husband was a miserable investor and lost all of the $100000 in the stock market. Let's say the wife was a great investor or got lucky and grew the $100,000 into $1 million over 20 years.

So just because fortunes changes does that invalidate the original terms of the pre-nup? If the marriage dissolves is she force to share the $1 million with him? If the marriage is intact should he have a right to determine how the $1 million is spent?

[crazymf]

My wife and myself went to counselling before we got married. We discussed everything from finances to having kids. I meant that and not after the fact counselling.

I frankly don't have to worry about this as I plan on being married as long as we are both alive. I get a kick out of you younger farts telling what works and doesn't work for marriage. The stats aren't with you my friends.

Come clean on how long each poster here has been married and we'll talk. I'll actually listen to anybody married over 15 years, otherwise you should be listening and not talking.

[August1991]

What an interesting thread!

Are prenuptial aggreements the death of love and romance?

I mean is it a way out for some folks to capitalise on securing payments and a relish in way of life

I mean it is reported that Katie Holmes will not sign agreements unless Cruise can financially secure her future and the baby's future, the agreement comes with additional clause in her favor I suppose

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RB, your question should rather be "Is marriage the death of love and romance?"

When two people marry in Canada, the State automatically gives them a "prenuptial agreement" in the form of a one-size-fits-all marriage contract. The terms of this contract vary by province.

What you call a prenuptial agreement, RB, is a personalized version of the standard marriage contract. So RB, in a sense, you are asking: "If people order different food at McDonalds, will this be the death of appetite and hunger?"

I would expect that in the future, there will be more "prenuptial agreements", or rather more personalized marriage contracts. Why? Not because more is at stake. (In a sense, a poor person has as much at stake as a rich person.) One reason is because we are richer and can afford more personalized service. Another reason is because marriage involves more diversity now. (Think about what that means for the gene pool!) We don't always know who we're dealing with now.

Which leads me to CrazyMom:

BING!!!! Only I see it like this:

Being human, people change, and to hell with the spouse. MEMEME. I think that people have to change to make a marriage work and last, not the other way around where people change to be incompatible.

Divorce is no longer frowned upon? It bloody well frowned upon where I come from. Divorce is a failure, period. Only screwed up people get divorced. For better and for worse? I guess people forget to understand that.

I've been married for 23 years and anybody who thinks it's easy should give their head a shake. It's not, and I wouldn't have been single or had different spouses given a chance. You must have qualities that compliment each other and a common goal.

I just shake my head when I hear these idiots getting divorces after a couple years.

Today's society: Is going to hell in a handbasket, fast.

It is nice to know, CMF, that you and your spouse wisely chose each other. Have all your choices always been so good? I doubt it, for the simple reason that the unexpected sometimes occurs. We frequently change our behaviour because of the unexpected. CMF, could you have guessed 23 years ago on your wedding night that you and I would be communicating in this public forum in 2005?

Such changes are usually no justification for divorce, but changing behaviour because of the unexpected on down to divorce is a question of degree.

Here's the rub: No one wants divorce because of trivialities. Marriage must be a long-term contract with high penalties for breach if one side decides to leave. A high (or impossible) cost for leaving a marriage would mean two people don't get married lightly either. Brittany Spears? Not.

----

RB, I take the view that marriage is just a long-term contract between two people, sort of like an employment contract between an employee and an employer. If I move to Lethbridge to take a job, I want to be sure beforehand that my employer won't lay me off because of "unexpected events". If I move to Lethbridge to marry someone, I want to be sure beforehand that my spouse won't divorce me because of "unexpected events".

In fact though, to be perfectly honest, and give my true answer to the gay marriage issue, the real contract between two people is not "marriage", it is having children. When two people have children (and I'll accept the adoption idea, sort of), the "contract" (or prenuptial agreement) changes radically.

Two people having a child assume responsibilities well beyond any State defined marriage contract.

Ultimately RB, your question should be, "Is having children the death of love and romance?"

----

MEMEME? CMF, it sounds like you and your spouse are very happy together, 23 years or so later. You probably match each other well. So who's to say your choice was not really about your own happiness? It was about you, no?

[newbie]

[quote name=crazymf' date='Nov 4 2005, 07:00 PM

Come clean on how long each poster here has been married and we'll talk. I'll actually listen to anybody married over 15 years, otherwise you should be listening and not talking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

27 years here crazy. First and only wife I'll have. It sounds kinda hackneyed but communication is the key.

[Renegade]

My wife and myself went to counselling before we got married. We discussed everything from finances to having kids. I meant that and not after the fact counselling.

This is excellent and is something every married couple should do. But isn't a pre-nup simply putting to paper and legally codifying what you have agreed to verbally?

I frankly don't have to worry about this as I plan on being married as long as we are both alive. I get a kick out of you younger farts telling what works and doesn't work for marriage. The stats aren't with you my friends.

Come clean on how long each poster here has been married and we'll talk. I'll actually listen to anybody married over 15 years, otherwise you should be listening and not talking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I applaud the fact that you have been married for so long. It is a testament to the fact that some marriages can and in fact do work. I don't presume to tell you or any one else what works for marriage. That isn't the point of a pre-nup.

It is not those who married the longest who are the most qualified to comment on a pre-nup. In fact those who have been married the longest are likely those who have never had to use the dissolution clause of a pre-nup and thus see no value in it. It is the people who have gone through one or more divorces who see the value of a pre-nup.

Almost 40% of marriages in Canada end in divorce before their 30th anniversary. While divorce doesn't happen to all marriages, with the high statistical rate of dissolution, isn't it prudent to put an agreement in place to to account for such a contingency?

The downside of having a pre-nup in place and not needing it is that there was the minor inconvenience and cost of setting it up. The downside of not having a pre-nup in place and actually needing one, can by financially devastating. If you know or have seen people going through divorce, you would understand that much of the financial wrangling and bitterness could have been avoided or mitigated if a pre-nup was in place. After all, most times people are the least amicable during a divorce and that is probably the hardest time to try and get an agreement in place.

A pre-nup is very much like insurance. No one values it unless disaster strikes and they need to use it. Also just like having insurance coverage doesn't cause disasters to happen, having a pre-nup doesn't cause marriages to fail.

[Renegade]

When two people marry in Canada, the State automatically gives them a "prenuptial agreement" in the form of a one-size-fits-all marriage contract.  The terms of this contract vary by province.

What you call a prenuptial agreement, RB, is a personalized version of the standard marriage contract.  So RB, in a sense, you are asking: "If people order different food at McDonalds, will this be the death of appetite and hunger?"

I would expect that in the future, there will be more "prenuptial agreements", or rather more personalized marriage contracts.  Why?  Not because more is at stake.  (In a sense, a poor person has as much at stake as a rich person.)  One reason is because we are richer and can afford more personalized service.  Another reason is because marriage involves more diversity now.  (Think about what that means for the gene pool!)  We don't always know who we're dealing with now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couldn't agree more. well said.

[crazymf]

OK here's another twist.....

First off, well said everyone. Your point of view are well taken.

It's a further sign of changing society that the prenup is supposedly becoming a piece of valid paperwork in marriage. My personal opinion is it's a degradation of society. However, that goes hand in hand with the fact that less and less young people 18-20 years old get married to their high school honey. More people wait, whether for education, finances, or just because it's becoming 'normal'.

I think you get one true innocent chance at life. In a perfect world with perfect parents and a perfect job, everything can work out perfectly. The role of spouses, parents and children used to be fairly well defined in our society, and I'm talking rural Alberta here. Men worked, women cooked and kids went to school. (No flames please, it's true) Everyone knew their role and complimented each others skills and responsibilities. Think 'Waltons'. For a bizillion reasons, society has changed and we now have a general degradation of 'those' values that are getting replaced with fringe values learned by exposure to media, daycare etc.

It stands to reason then, that when traditional values are jumbled up and people begin to have different ideas about how life should be conducted, there's going to be more discontent and domestic conflict. Women need to work to make ends meet because of financial difficulties due to the fact that the TV says you should be living in a large house on Terwilligar Drive. They begin to resent the fact that they must bear kids maybe and begin to not have a happy life. Men go to work chasing the dream and have no one at home waiting with supper so they go out to the bar, whatever. Kids get abandoned in the mix and learn values from who knows where.

It's no wonder people are screwed up nowadays. Basic traditional values seem to have become nonexistent. While I still want to believe people are generally good natured, I do not believe one can rely on them to hold any of the values ones self might have. I think people are confused because some of the basic childhood programming has been tainted.

Prenups, gay marriages, and virtually all issues of todays society can be traced back to a degradation of traditional family values. The best thing people can do is fall in love young, get married before you're too smart or rich, make a life together, and realize you're stronger together than apart.

Don't believe the television telling you that internet day trading will make you the head of a large corporation by the time you're 20. If it was easy, everyone would be rich. Wakey wakey.....

Oh yeah, what values do you think Tom Cruise has? I say none. He's probably some empty headed bozo that thinks with his little head and does what his agent says. I parrot an earlier sentiment and also don't really give a crap about what he does with his personal life.

[Melanie_]

Interesting thread. I've always thought a pre-nup was a cop-out, like saying, "I promise to love, honour and cherish you til death do us part, but if it doesn't work out, you can't have any of my stuff."

Crazymf, I'm not familiar with rural Alberta, but I get your point. And if it works for both partners, and everyone is happy, all is well and good. I respect the traditional family structure, but it doesn't work for everyone, and I don't think you can turn back the clock to the days of Ozzie and Harriet.

Women need to work to make ends meet because of financial difficulties due to the fact that the TV says you should be living in a large house on Terwilligar Drive. They begin to resent the fact that they must bear kids maybe and begin to not have a happy life. Men go to work chasing the dream and have no one at home waiting with supper so they go out to the bar, whatever. Kids get abandoned in the mix and learn values from who knows where.

This is pretty dark, and over simplified. Most women don't work for the luxuries, they work for the neccessities. And if my husband (19 years) thought that not having supper on the table when he got home was a good reason to go to the bar, he'd have another think coming. He's just as capable of cooking as I am. And kids learn the values their parents live, whether they are working or not.

Another perspective on marriage longevity... I know that, if I were single, I could support my children and myself - our lifestyle would definitely change, but it would be possible. I like the fact that I am not dependent, but freely choose to stay married. In my mind, that is a clear committment.

[Canuck E Stan]

I respect the traditional family structure, but it doesn't work for everyone, and I don't think you can turn back the clock to the days of Ozzie and Harriet.

Forget the days of Ozzie and Harriet, look at Ozzie and Sharon.

F*cken 'ell(as Ozzie would say) they make it work, disfunctions and all.

Wonder if they have a pre-nup?