Tom Cruise playing hardball with pre-nuptial

[RB]

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

No technology killed romance.

I mean men do not want to go around and open car doors anymore for women. So they have gone on and invented power doors, automatic doors, and power locks to stay inside for whatever reason.

I mean there is no need to wait on anyone we have email, voice mail, cell, pagers. You don't have to anticipate anymore - answers at a ding.

Who would have thought romance was about consulting a list of potential Mr. Rights now spitting out of databases via on line dating services.

And then the folks try to hit straight to the core. Like no romance. Like what's your A/S/L please? Really? What they really want to know is whether it is the right ass, size and libido

Romance is reduced to ILU, FYI romance dies in 3 letters, and your devotion to romance is reduced to shorthand.

[RB]

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}>

A poor person marrying a well-off person has greater than one reasons to sign off on a pre-nuptial especially if they can bargain favorably otherwise it is worthless for a poor person to sign. In this case a pre nuptial would mostly benefit the rich person who is selfish and won't share - which is why I don't approve in mixing cultures, diversity with marriage - Like you have your wealth and also keep it.

If I were destitute and my spouse is penniless - no pre-nuptial necessary

[szkw1]

I will never get married without a pre-nup. I have assets, like my house, that I own outright. I am not prepared to lose half of it due to a divorce or seperation.

I might also add that I am middle aged so my case would be a lot different than a young couple just starting out.

[RB]

I will never get married without a pre-nup.  I have assets, like my house, that I own outright.  I am not prepared to lose half of it due to a divorce or seperation.

I might also add that I am middle aged so my case would be a lot different than a young couple just starting out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can always make a will to assign your assets if you didn't want to get marry.

If you did decide to marry, the will is invalidated.

But, however you are signing these prenuptials and safeguards, your spouse is living with you "she" is bound to take wealth regardless. Poor chaps.

I have decided that if I have accumulated enough wealth that I am never going to marry. In this instance, my man won't have to worry about his wealth and I won't worry either.

[szkw1]

[

You can always make a will to assign your assets if you didn't want to get marry.

If you did decide to marry, the will is invalidated.

But, however you are signing these prenuptials and safeguards, your spouse is living with you "she" is bound to take wealth regardless.  Poor chaps.

I have decided that if I have accumulated enough wealth that I am never going to marry.  In this instance, my man won't have to worry about his wealth and I won't worry either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excuse me if I were to get married my spouse wouldn't be a she. I am female.

I have a will that designates where my assets go but if I do decide to get married it would be with the understanding that my current assets would still go to those named in my will.

[Riverwind]

I have a will that designates where my assets go but if I do decide to get married it would be with the understanding that my current assets would still go to those named in my will.

Does not work that way. If you have minor children then courts will hand most of your assets over to the guardian of your children. I also believe your spouse can contest any will that does not leave them the share they would have been entitled to on divorce.

[szkw1]

Does not work that way. If you have minor children then courts will hand most of your assets over to the guardian of your children. I also believe your spouse can contest any will that does not leave them the share they would have been entitled to on divorce.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If there is a prenup stating that my assets prior to a marriage would go to somebody other than a spouse then there would be no problem with the distribution of property at the time of death. Any party can contest a will if they think they are being treated unfairly but I don't need to worry about that because I will be dead.

[kimmy]

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

The couple had said that Katie would be foregoing her own quite lucrative career in favor of raising Baby Scientologists for Tom. As she's giving up large paycheques she could be earning, I don't see this as being an unreasonable request.

Another point that might be relevant is that Tom Cruise is a complete nutjob.

-k

[szkw1]

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}>

The couple had said that Katie would be foregoing her own quite lucrative career in favor of raising Baby Scientologists for Tom. As she's giving up large paycheques she could be earning, I don't see this as being an unreasonable request.

Another point that might be relevant is that Tom Cruise is a complete nutjob.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can anyone possibly argue the points you have brought up. If he wants Katie to give up her career he should provide for her and their child's future. He can't have it both ways. You are right that he is a nutjob even King Nutjob.

[RB]

szkw1,Nov 25 2005, 02:29 PM]

Excuse me if I were to get married my spouse wouldn't be a she.  I am female.

Apologies in order.

I have a will that designates where my assets go but if I do decide to get married it would be with the understanding that my current assets would still go to those named in my will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you live in Ontario. There are special rights to homes. No matter who owns the home, the home may not be sold or mortgaged without both spouses' consent; neither spouse can be excluded from the home, until a separation agreement or court order grants one spouse exclusive possession.

On death of a spouse, there is a right to occupy a matrimonial home i.e. This is the right of the surviving, non-owner spouse, and it continues for six months following the death of the owner spouse.

Automatic entitlement to share in the deceased's estate i.e. where the deceased has no will.

[szkw1]

Since you live in Ontario. There are special rights to homes.  No matter who owns the home, the home may not be sold or mortgaged without both spouses' consent; neither spouse can be excluded from the home, until a separation agreement or court order grants one spouse exclusive possession.

On death of a spouse, there is a right to occupy a matrimonial home i.e. This is the right of the surviving, non-owner spouse, and it continues for six months following the death of the owner spouse.

Automatic entitlement to share in the deceased's estate i.e. where the deceased has no will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's it I'm not getting married.

[RB]

Since you live in Ontario. There are special rights to homes.  No matter who owns the home, the home may not be sold or mortgaged without both spouses' consent; neither spouse can be excluded from the home, until a separation agreement or court order grants one spouse exclusive possession.

On death of a spouse, there is a right to occupy a matrimonial home i.e. This is the right of the surviving, non-owner spouse, and it continues for six months following the death of the owner spouse.

Automatic entitlement to share in the deceased's estate i.e. where the deceased has no will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's it I'm not getting married.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's like giving up. You started this discussion with an opening "I will never get married without a pre-nup". Men are the reason women exist plus they are our ticket predisposed to happiness.

I can never let my actions be influence by my fears. For this reason, I can certainly take lots stabs of marriage until I get it right.

[PocketRocket]

I can certainly take lots stabs of marriage until I get it right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Didn't Lorena Bobbitt say something like that???

Now there was a marriage that was a cut above all the rest.

Oh well, she certainly got her pound of flesh, or at least a couple ounces.

[RB]

I can certainly take lots stabs of marriage until I get it right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Didn't Lorena Bobbitt say something like that???

Now there was a marriage that was a cut above all the rest.

Oh well, she certainly got her pound of flesh, or at least a couple ounces.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a story that men resonate well with and I might add in a very personal way. Poor chap of course. We live and have a viewpoint from the patriarchy. Women esp. Latin women are noted for their submissiveness to men. For this reason, they help maintain and perpetuate patriarchy which allows for abuse, violence, rape

This story made the headlines because, here is a meek person demanding her orgasms, and also taking took stabs at what is symbolic of power.

Women relate to Lorena and her experiences of sufferance, and of her sexual hate.

Men are incapable of hating sex. I have not seen written materials where men make such announcement.

Lorena was found also not liable for her actions.

[PocketRocket]

That is a story that men resonate well with and I might add in a very personal way.  Poor chap of course.  We live and have a viewpoint from the patriarchy. Women esp. Latin women are noted for their submissiveness to men. For this reason, they help maintain and perpetuate patriarchy which allows for abuse, violence, rape

"Poor chap"????? You figure???

*OUCH*

And she threw it out of her moving vehicle on a busy highway!!!!

I'd hate to have been in the car following her. ("Hey Martha, you see the size of the penis on that fly???")

This story made the headlines because, here is a meek person demanding her orgasms, and also taking took stabs at what is symbolic of power. 

I think it made headlines because SHE CUT OFF HER MAN'S DICK.

*OUCH* again.

I'm sure that ANY woman, or man for that matter, would make headlines for doing the same.

But I don't want to be part of any experiment to prove this theory.

Putting your money where your mouth is is one thing, but.......

Women relate to Lorena and her experiences of sufferance, and of her sexual hate.

Waitaminit. If she HATED sex, then why would she be jealous of her hubby having some elsewhere???

In once sentence you say she is deprived of orgasms, in the next you say she hated sex.

Which is it???

Men are incapable of hating sex.  I have not seen written materials where men make such announcement.

A man who hates sex wouldn't be publicizing the fact.

But for the record; I hate sex.

No, sorry, I can't say that and keep a straight face.

Lorena was found also not liable for her actions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And funnier yet, they got back together.

A sensible arrangement, really.

If she hates sex, and he has no penis, well, it's a match made in heaven.

[RB]

Well, the orgasms were an expression of some cultural expectations and arrangements the genders have.

I can see that Lorena refused to be a victim and she lashed out. Also, she played a victim’s role in that she solicited a deserving behavior from her mate.

The Bobbit chap is seen as attacking, being violent and an oppressor of women. More to the point, I see that men who do not engage in this disposition of onslaught still benefit from it and seen as normal behavior.

I don’t believe in violence, or arm violence for that matter. All it does is shift blame from men to women and vice versa while it put both men and women as armed and violent and tend to normalize male violence.

What I meant is that a man being aggressive with woman is A OK because women can also to be violent towards men.

In a way, normalizing male aggressiveness deflects attention away from other insidious issues as it relates to women.

Whatever happened in the Bobbit experience is not a desirable one.

And as far as I can see here, we are mostly inclined to address and remember the retaliated violence rather than the source of that violence.

[moderateamericain]

if someone cut off my manhood, i would murder them on the spot. *shudders*

[kimmy]

if someone cut off my manhood, i would murder them on the spot. *shudders*

Actually, I doubt it. You'd most likely be catatonic from pain and blood-loss.

(that's just a guess. I doubt guys are up to committing homicide after suffering that sort of injury...)

(...I once heard a news story about a Thai man who severed his own ...bobbitt, as a protest against his wife's infidelity. Not a good plan, in my view. If she was looking outside the marriage for sex *before* hand, I think that was probably not going to help.)

(also, I read on the Darwin Awards once, where there was this man who ... well, the details are rather horrific. However, it involved golfing-buddies, alcohol, and the words "Hey, I dare you to..." Although the man survived the accident, he was eligible for Darwin Award consideration on the grounds that the specifics of the injury were such that he would never be able to reproduce, and had, therefore been "naturally selected" against, in the Darwin tradition.)

-kimmy

{kimmy is opposed to the severing of guy-parts and girl-parts.}

[piercj2]

American Society- greed, distrust, folly, arrogance, lust, deceitfullness, deception, SEX, anti-depressants, and above all, PARADISE????????

[kimmy]

American Society- greed, distrust, folly, arrogance, lust, deceitfullness, deception, SEX, anti-depressants, and above all, PARADISE????????

Whaaaa?

-k

[PocketRocket]

-kimmy

{kimmy is opposed to the severing of guy-parts and girl-parts.}

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

THAT'S IT !!!!!

THAT'S IT !!!!!

The new and official Kimmy-party slogan

[August1991]

I'll put this in here:

Liberal MP Belinda Stronach is named as the (e)X-factor in a divorce application filed against former Maple Leaf Tie Domi.

Leanne Domi reportedly believes her husband and Stronach have been involved in an "intimate sexual relationship" since he began working with her on a political campaign in January 2006.

....

After some number-crunching, Feldstein deduces that Leanne is after 70% of Tie's net income. Were Leanne to be awarded the full amount, after taxes she would get a handsome cheque for $33,000 in child and spousal support, while Tie would get $14,500 a month.

Ottawa Sun

[fellowtraveller]

A wise lawyer once said: Never do a pre-nup for the first marriage, always do a pre-nup for subsequent marriages.

Makes sense to me, and simply addresses the realtiy that marriage is both a romantic and economic union. We all , over time, outline the parameters of our romantic union. Why would we do less for the economic union?

It is particularly important when - as so often happens - each person brings children to the new union. Those children must be protected from the consequences of divorce and financially cared for whatever happens to the emotional life of a parent.

[Remiel]

That stuff on Tie Domi is outrageous. I mean, in addition to splitting assets? Custody, more than two-thirds income, half of assets? Any lawyer or judge who would actually go for that needs a serious talking to.

I think 15000/month for both child AND spousal support would be more than fair, given 47500/month. They say it takes 300000 to raise a child... and she wants 700000/year for them?

Also, talking about how many years everyone has been married makes me want to start a thread to see how old people are in these boards. But, I would probably get flamed out by some for that. From what I gather though, I am virtually certain I am close to the youngest regular poster on these boards. I know that I haven't been posting that long, but I plan to keep posting in the future.

[Charles Anthony]

in addition to splitting assets? Custody, more than two-thirds income, half of assets? Any lawyer or judge who would actually go for that needs a serious talking to.

That is the price the loser will have to pay to prevent the divorce from going to trial and hence, going public.

If a divorcing couple settles out of court, things can stay private.

If they go to court, everything becomes public.