Posted on 09/18/2005 3:05:48 AM PDT by Caipirabob
Over a casual dinner, Rachel Kaplan turned to her boyfriend and asked, "You're open for a prenup, right?"
Darren Waldohlz, 38, a partner in a successful speed-dating business, admits he was caught off guard. But he said he realized a prenuptial agreement would protect the house he owns, too.
"It's not that I plan to get divorced," says Kaplan, 23, a single mom from Fort Lauderdale, who has a sizable inheritance. "I have to protect myself and my daughter."
While men are still more likely to seek a prenup, "women are becoming a more dominant force," said attorney Alan Braverman, who has offices in Fort Lauderdale and Boynton Beach.
Experts attribute the change to women marrying later or more than once.
"It's not uncommon in today's world that women are entering marriages with assets and stock options," said matrimonial attorney Jacqueline Valdespino, in Coral Gables. "Now both sides have equal bargaining power."
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
I knew that.
Lovely
In retrospect, that might be the mose gruesome thing I've ever seen....
Totally gross.
The bad part is that it's on purpose.
I think part of the problem is the the perception/fact paternity fraud is rampant. I think there should be an absolute bar to paternity fraud based support claims whether in OR out of marriage.
The "compromise" to make it pass is that you eliminate the ability to reclaim support paid, but you bar future support.
You also make a DNA test MANDATORY in 100% of all cases where child support is claimed. If Everyone is required to go through the process then there is no "stigma" of having to go through the DNA test. The only danger is that of being exposed as a cheater.
If people are going to have people responsible then they should be responsible for what they ACTUALLY do.
Without a "before" picture, it's hard to be sure that this is not an improvement.
HAHAHAAHAHahahaa... Always on the sunnyside aintcha? HHAHahahahaha.....
Keep on the sunnyside
Always on the sunnyside.
Keep on the sunnyside of life.
But all in all, I guess any one can agree that it is red when we bleed :)
Of course you do. There's no other reason for it.
I have a much better idea.
Don't get married at all.
Unfortunately it took me 3 times at bat to learn this lesson.
Guess I'm just hardheaded.
Never again.
Kinda feels like you got hit WITH the bat, don't it?
The problem is that the left wing sunsentinal is combining apples and oranges.
The woman is a single mother (by divorce or death), she has a first duty to provide for her daughter. As a FL resident her new husband would be entitled to the widowers share over provision in her will to the contrary to give him nothing or less than the widower's share.
It is a BS article trying to attack marriage via the ME ME ME ME mentality.
Of course if the new husband LEGALLY adopts the children then there really is no need for the prenup.
*smirks*
Right after I was forced to whittle it from a tree branch.
My post to you shows it at the second entry in 1980's, and instead of pointing that out to me, you dig up an older dictionary that shows it as the sixth entry.
Which supports my assertion that the further back you go, the more unusual it becomes to use the word, virgin, as a noun for a man.
Go back far enough, and the more conservative authorities do not accept such use.
So let's see:
1200: virgin means a chaste woman of great piety.
1300s: first known use of virgin for a man (which for all I know may have been used by a gay man to describe his boyfriend).
1960: a man as a virgin is the sixth definition in Webster's--way down the list.
1980s: a man as a virgin has climbed to number 2.
2000's: virgin = person.
And so the women's libbers have won: men are now officially feminzed.
Well not this man, because I am a conservative.
of Samuel Johnson's dictionary, published in 1755. A quick perusal of same, turned up no entry for the word "virgin". LOL
The use of the word, virgin, to describe a woman can be traced to 1300.
Oh--and look up the word, perusal, and you will see that your use of it is incorrect.
And we no longer need sex either now that we can fertilize eggs in test tubes.
Personally, if I found out that a suitor had slept with any woman, I'd have nothing to do with him physically. He'd be tainted. Like a poisoned well. A willing partner to darkness.
I'd still marry him to keep him from contaminating other virgins. But sex would be OUT. He could do CHORES, though. Buy me things. You know. Cars, houses, diamonds. And since his tainting was none of my doing, I would be free to pursue my sex life as needed. After all, my virginity shouldn't be clouded by the sins of my husband. I would remain pure as the driven snow and the blackness of my husband's evil, filthy past would never pollute my virgin body. *cue angelic choir* < /sarc >
Protecting against fraud is not the same as expecting it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.