|
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 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. |
ONLY need it if "things go wrong"?
you make that sound like an unlikely proposition.
50% strikes me as pretty goddamn good odds, don't you think?
regardless of what I think of marriage (my views are far more nuanced than you suggest)... it still goes back to the pre-nup.
and I don't know the circumstances of the marriage and know nothing about the woman in question. so I can't comment but the fact she's trying to blow up the prenup makes me immediately very suspicious.
I will say though that when Joe NBA marries some groupie ho.though.. your argument of "her giving up time when she could've been doing something with her ahemmmm "career" etc is pretty funny, don't you think?
what would've she been doing? stripping? trying to get pregnant by some other guy?
it's not like we're talking about some budding female lawyer who puts her career on hold for her young yuppy husband.
what was Larry Fortensky missing out on when with Liz Taylor for a couple of years? driving a truck?
I'd like to find out more specifics about this little "marriage". How long.. who is she... etc etc etc
I find it hard to believe she had to put anything "on hold" to help out Bill's professional development, don't you think?
AND.. because the child support payments are likely to be very generous because of Murray's wealth.. she can easily live off them and provide for the kids (though apparently there will be a custody battle?) until they turn 18.
I keep on remembering about Brian Urlacher and the stripper who had his kid... he's shelling out a lot of money in child support.. and the ho went to court saying it wasn't enough to "provide for the child". When the local radio station revealed the money involved... calls flooded in and a lot of women got angry... (at the floozy that is...)
I remember one of P Diddy's hos suing last year to get more child support. I think the 60K a month or whatever she was getting just wasn't "enough" to provide for the child 
p.s. btw. I fully support the concept of equal division of wealth accrued WHILE married. (even if it completely fucks over someone like Michael Jordan, etc)
what pisses me off to no end is how people get assets taken away from them that they BROUGHT into the marriage. That is eminently unfair, whether you're Roseanne Barr or Bill Murray. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theholyinnocent
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bogey666 wrote: |
ONLY need it if "things go wrong"?
you make that sound like an unlikely proposition.
50% strikes me as pretty goddamn good odds, don't you think? |
They are pretty good, which is why I said it's good to imagine the worst-case scenario -- not just that you divorce, but that you divorce because he's a horrible abusive cave-dweller -- when you're signing the pre-nup. Plenty of divorces are relatively amicable, but in many your former spouse will try to screw you over as much as possible -- and THAT is what the pre-nup is for.
As for the rest of your post, I noted in mine that these issues are less important in wealthy marriages because of the size of the child support payments and because of the assumed amount of free time the non-supporting spouse will have to live her "own" life, in terms of education and profession -- but I don't think we know for certain what the specifics are, do we? Would she have been some pregnant stripper groupie without him? I think that, not knowing anything about her, that's kind of a crummy assumption to make. But I don't know anything about her at all, and I know very little about him -- all I know is generalities when it comes to divorce. And generally, women are the ones who sacrifice their own individual achievement to aid the achievement of their husbands, so I don't see it as some kind of vast anti-man conspiracy that women are frequently compensated for this if the couple divorces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Contracts get renegotiated all the time. Why shouldn't pre-nups? Especially after Bill broke the marriage contract. Anyway, I'm less interested in the pre-nup arrangement and more in the alleged fact that he abandoned the kids to flit around the world to get laid and thought it was OK behavior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bogey666
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Location: Korea, the ass free zone
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Contracts get renegotiated all the time. Why shouldn't pre-nups? Especially after Bill broke the marriage contract. Anyway, I'm less interested in the pre-nup arrangement and more in the alleged fact that he abandoned the kids to flit around the world to get laid and thought it was OK behavior. |
Hmm.
Bill "broke the marriage contract"?
what is that exactly?
strike me as just ceremonial words though I am sure everyone means them when they are uttered at the time. if it were a real legal contract with the terms you imagine, the lawyers would be having a field day and no one would get married.
you mean the till death do us part, blah blah bah?
this opens up an interesting can of worms.
what if Bill claims he didn't get laid enough? is that a breach of the "marriage contract" as well?
it's all downhill from there...
anyways. I could be wrong, but I thought prenups don't get into the CAUSES of the divorce or "fault" assignment, unless you get that clause put in (I'm not a lawyer, could be wrong on this.. any lawyers care to comment?) I would certainly advocate getting such clauses put in to protect oneself against completely irresponsible people.
I agree re women often putting aside careers for the man's benefit, but that's clearly inapplicable here. Bill's career was well established. They had the means for a full time nanny so she could have continued with whatever "professional development" she wanted.
I believe someone else already addressed the "abandoment" issue. Bill I am sure is often away from home while filming movies, sometimes overseas.. is that "abandoment"?
how about the father who works 60 hour weeks or two jobs and rarely sees the kids. Is that "abandoment"?
anyways, we are all idly speculating not really knowing the facts and circumstances of the case. If anyone does have info on the background of Mrs. Murray, etc I'd love to read it.
I'm not the type who advocates getting married and then running around, screwing around, etc etc. Au contraire. It's precisely because of my desire not to eliminate such opportunities (few as they are) that I choose NOT to get married.
which all brings up ANOTHER interesting question...
just what is the INCENTIVE of marriage? especially for the partner that stands most to lose financially if it ends (and odds say it's a cointoss?)
there are plenty of people these days who live in a de facto "common law" marriage, without appearing before some stupid govt official to "certify" their union.
so once again, what does marriage provide?
is it a guarantee against a split up? clearly not, since divorce happens half of the time. A partner can still walk away from the other.. just like had they never gotten married.
it's just that the one with dough has to PAY --
why does someone with dough get married in the first place? where is the incentive exactly? all the "upside" of a true union can be attained without the marriage contract... and marriage simply enables all the downside.
Aren't Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn not married (or if not them it's another long time Hollywood couple... how about Oprah and Stedman Graham?)
no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bogey666
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Location: Korea, the ass free zone
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well they cancelled almost all of my classes today, so I figured I'd do a little research on the Murrays
hmm. more than 10 years and 4 kids (Caleb, 15, Jackson, 12, Cooper, 11, and Lincoln, who turns seven on Friday).
they married a little over 10 years ago, meaning the first three kids were born outside of wedlock. Interesting.
(immediately raises the question of why Bill finally chose to get married? obviously he wasn't keen on the idea, and probably ONLY did it with that prenup - he's not nearly as dumb as I thought 
based on this article she wants to KEEP the pre-nup?
'....Her court order also aims to keep in place a pre-nup which would give her $7 million and support her "in the style to which she was accustomed during the marriage."..."
I love the "style to which she was accustomed to part. That's why I love living very modest lifestyles hahahahahaha
Her complaints are interesting. HOWEVER.. my question would then be..
Gee, Jennifer.. are you saying he never engaged in this alleged behavior PRIOR to your marriage??? I find that a little hard to believe. Of course what she knew and when she knew it is information she'd probably never divulge.
this wasn't a shotgun wedding though. They had 3 kids BEFORE tying the knot. She had lots and lots and lots of time to ascertain his worth not only as a husband.. but as a FATHER as well.
Something SMELLS.
this spins the prenup differently
'....She's also seeking to retain the family home and ban Murray from entering it on account of his "physical abuse...his abandonment, his emotional instability, his refusal to seek treatment for the same, and his adultery."
Jennifer's most unusual request, however, is for the court to determine whether the couple's prenup remains valid and enforceable in light of Murray's alleged breach in behavior. In the document, also obtained by the Post and Courier, both sides agreed to waive their right to alimony or support, but Murray would still be required to pay $7 million to his now estranged wife..."
Hmm.. I wonder who PAID for the home? now he can't enter his own house? *beep* that. I can understand the physical abuse part if true, but the other parts don't prevent you from entering the house you paid for.
looking over Jennifer's "career", safe to say her "career" became being Mrs. Murray - she had NO "career".
Costume Designer:
If Someone Had Known (1995) (TV)
Terror in the Night (1994) (TV)
Groundhog Day (1993)
The Lookalike (1990) (TV)
Without Her Consent (1990) (TV) (as Jennifer Butler-Fox)
Costume and Wardrobe Department:
1990s
1980s
The Last of the Mohicans (1992) (costume supervisor)
What About Bob? (1991) (costumer: Mr. Murray)
Ghostbusters II (1989) (costumer) (as Jennifer Butler-Fox)
... aka Ghostbusters 2 (USA: video box title)
Scrooged (1988) (costumer)
The Dead (1987) (costumer: women)
hey.. the adultery part is interesting??
apparently they first got together when they were BOTH previously married and BOTH cheating on their spouses?
looks to me now that Bill clearly didn't want to get married.(for whatever reason(s) .. and when perhaps pushed into it, he said..
"ok.. but I'm establishing 7 million as my "loss" for this gig, plus whatever child support, which he may not have minded paying anyways, if he loves his kids". That was the pre-nup in a nutshell. She gets 7 million, no alimony.
that's the part that jumps out at me. Bill's clearly not a dumb guy. Quite smart, actually.
still trying to check that allegation of both meeting and engaging in an adulterous relationship. If true, that would put her "adultery" allegations in an entirely different light, NO? It's clearly not something that's all that 'sacred' to her (marriage vows, because she figured being Mrs. Murray would be a step up from being a married to a "nobody" costume designer)
Given anecdotes about Bill's temper though -- I wouldn't be shocked if her violence allegations were true - and if they are - well there are laws about that kind of thing.
actually my "nose" tells me her allegations are probably not that distant from the "real truth".
But my nose also tells me she knew the story and the life she was getting into before ever getting married. She willingly took the risk.
and now is trying to lie about it en route to "payday". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khunopie
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: Fucking, Austria (pronounced "Fooking")
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tzechuk wrote: |
Are you guys seriously saying that because he has a particular profession he has the right to do as he wants?
That's unbelieveable. |
All men have the right to hump any lady, i mean, chick, who wants to hump us. It's god's gift to us... Amen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
