|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bogey666
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Location: Korea, the ass free zone
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject: Re: Bill Murray's wife trying to drag him through the mud... |
 |
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| bogey666 wrote: |
fidelity, honest and "all the things are that suppose to come with a union" is relatively modern claptrap and bullshit that has little or nothing to do with how marriage has always been (and remains in many parts of the world)
|
Fidelity and honesty in marriage are modern claptrap? "Thou shalt not lie." "Thou shalt not commit adultery." How do you understand the term "modern?" |
those are the Ten COMMANDMENTS.
religious proscriptions.
please study some history since Moses and tell me in how many societies adultery was a big deal. Where it was a big (ger) deal, the religion allowed a man to have several wives (Islam) or simply take on more wives (how many did King David have?) how about Moses himself? or religion and religious figures played a large part in politics.. and thereby ruled the poorer people, whereas more powerful people in society could say.. go *beep* yourself Father and your ideas of chastity and fidelity. (like people at every royal court in Europe and elsewhere)
there was a double standard against women, (religion also played a part) but this was also because society did NOT want any confusion about the rightful heirs to property rights, family name, etc
and even though this was in force in Roman patrician society, some married women still fucked around like rabbits. Julius Caesar had a reputation of having screwed just about all the wives of his fellow Senators.
The Ottoman Sultans had huge harems.
Ever read Shogun? it accurately portrays Japanese society at the time, untainted by "Christianity". How was "fidelity" treated in Japan? In Japan they went even farther than other places. It wasn't the wife's duty to please her man sexually, her duty was merely to have/raise the chidren and attend/run the samurai household.
Concubines were common and accepted, yet they didn't hold the same rank/importance/status as the wife.
Prostitutution is the world's OLDEST profession. Why do you think that is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| She's singing the same tune that rich (American) football players sing when it comes to contract renegotiation time: "I need to feed my babies too!" |
When rich famous men do that, they are just showing good solid business sense. She is just being selfish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bogey666
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Location: Korea, the ass free zone
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| She's singing the same tune that rich (American) football players sing when it comes to contract renegotiation time: "I need to feed my babies too!" |
When rich famous men do that, they are just showing good solid business sense. She is just being selfish. |
hehehe.
well the rich famous men are bringing something to the table. Their skills, which are in demand. In a nagetiation tactic you need to have something to negotiate with.
(actually, athletes talk about "taking care of my family" - but this means their possies, their gf's, their hos and the mothers of their nine different children - then the mothers become unhappy with the child support payments.. since it's THEIR main source of income for 18 years)
She is bringing what exactly?? I'm assuming he'll be responsible for child support, what exactly is her whine about her prenup? why did she sign it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| She is bringing what exactly?? |
Her skills as a mother, not to mention her time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bogey666
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Location: Korea, the ass free zone
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| She is bringing what exactly?? |
Her skills as a mother, not to mention her time. |
doesn't/won't she get child support? (and a quite handsome/generous one at that?)
and what does "her time" have to do with the prenup?
is that what Larry Fortensky got paid for by Elizabeth Taylor?
his "time"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: Re: Bill Murray's wife trying to drag him through the mud... |
|
|
| bogey666 wrote: |
| Ever read Shogun? it accurately portrays Japanese society at the time, untainted by "Christianity". How was "fidelity" treated in Japan? In Japan they went even farther than other places. It wasn't the wife's duty to please her man sexually, her duty was merely to have/raise the chidren and attend/run the samurai household. |
Agree with you 100%, except the part that Shogun "accurately portrays" Japan at the time... That'd be like saying Arthurian legend accurately portrays British society at the time... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theholyinnocent
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bogey666 wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| She is bringing what exactly?? |
Her skills as a mother, not to mention her time. |
doesn't/won't she get child support? (and a quite handsome/generous one at that?)
and what does "her time" have to do with the prenup?
|
For someone who so thoroughly adheres to the idea that women decrease greatly in value as they age, I thought you'd be the first to say that even from the strictest, driest market-value point of view, someone who gives her "greatest asset" -- her youth -- to a man, by entering into a contract wherein she promises her assets and he promises his, should be in some way compensated should she find herself vastly depreciated in value and completely lacking in the already-promised support. I mean really, you go on and on about how women are only valuable when they're young and attractive and fertile, and then you act like handing over the youngest, most attractive, most fertile portion of your life in exchange for something you don't end up getting is nothing at all. Hell, I don't even agree with you* but I can see the logical inconsistency.
All of this without even bringing up any issues of free labor provided, support for the man's career, etc. Many times, one half of a partnership must be overly accommodating to aid the success of their spouse -- accommodating to the point of putting their own life on hold. This is done with the expectation that both spouses -- the partnership -- will benefit overall, both from the hard work of one and from the sacrifices and support of the other. So there is a whole other issue of, "I wasted 20 years helping you achieve your goals, and now I am significantly behind where I would need to be in order to do this on my own." Child support helps cover the cost of caring for the children, but it does nothing to address the problem of being significantly behind where one would have been -- educationally, professionally, etc -- had one never married at all. It is, of course, less of an issue in very wealthy couples where the need for one person to sacrifice is not as strong because you can hire people to take care of your life and its complications for you; and where child support is more than just a couple hundred a month for food and whatever else you can possibly squeeze out of it. But it's not something to ignore.
Of course, I don't know the terms of the pre-nup. I'm a fan of pre-nups in general, because I don't see why either partner should feel entitled to wealth brought into the marriage from the beginning should the marriage fall apart. Many pre-nups will, however, allow for a division of wealth and assets jointly accrued over the course of the marriage, and if this pre-nup says something like, "Child support and nothing else," then she signed it, and she should have been less starry-eyed when she read the terms. You can say, "Oh, but I didn't know he'd turn out to be such a cretin!" all you want, but pre-nups are there for the worst-case scenario, not the best, so you should have signed it imagining that. You'll only need the pre-nup if things go wrong, after all.
*On just about any of what I just said. I don't agree that a woman's greatest asset is her youth and her appearance, much less her fertility. I don't agree that marriage is about trading youth and beauty for money and security. And so on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bogey666
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Location: Korea, the ass free zone
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| theholyinnocent wrote: |
| bogey666 wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| She is bringing what exactly?? |
Her skills as a mother, not to mention her time. |
doesn't/won't she get child support? (and a quite handsome/generous one at that?)
and what does "her time" have to do with the prenup?
|
For someone who so thoroughly adheres to the idea that women decrease greatly in value as they age, I thought you'd be the first to say that even from the strictest, driest market-value point of view, someone who gives her "greatest asset" -- her youth -- to a man, by entering into a contract wherein she promises her assets and he promises his, should be in some way compensated should she find herself vastly depreciated in value and completely lacking in the already-promised support. I mean really, you go on and on about how women are only valuable when they're young and attractive and fertile, and then you act like handing over the youngest, most attractive, most fertile portion of your life in exchange for something you don't end up getting is nothing at all. Hell, I don't even agree with you* but I can see the logical inconsistency.
All of this without even bringing up any issues of free labor provided, support for the man's career, etc. Many times, one half of a partnership must be overly accommodating to aid the success of their spouse -- accommodating to the point of putting their own life on hold. This is done with the expectation that both spouses -- the partnership -- will benefit overall, both from the hard work of one and from the sacrifices and support of the other. So there is a whole other issue of, "I wasted 20 years helping you achieve your goals, and now I am significantly behind where I would need to be in order to do this on my own." Child support helps cover the cost of caring for the children, but it does nothing to address the problem of being significantly behind where one would have been -- educationally, professionally, etc -- had one never married at all. It is, of course, less of an issue in very wealthy couples where the need for one person to sacrifice is not as strong because you can hire people to take care of your life and its complications for you; and where child support is more than just a couple hundred a month for food and whatever else you can possibly squeeze out of it. But it's not something to ignore.
Of course, I don't know the terms of the pre-nup. I'm a fan of pre-nups in general, because I don't see why either partner should feel entitled to wealth brought into the marriage from the beginning should the marriage fall apart. Many pre-nups will, however, allow for a division of wealth and assets jointly accrued over the course of the marriage, and if this pre-nup says something like, "Child support and nothing else," then she signed it, and she should have been less starry-eyed when she read t | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
