More women are asking for prenups

Sun Sentinel ^ | September 18, 2005 | Georgia East

[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."

[HitmanLV]

Well, as I see it, both men & women have more freedom and flexibility when it comes to career and life stuff. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

People are more free than now to find someone that suits them and their expectations than ever. Like I said, a woman with a time demanding career just has to find one man that will accommodate her time and career demands. She doesn't have to find dozens, nor hundreds, nor thousands. Just one.

Men are in the same position - a man just needs to find a woman who will accommodate their time and career demands.

Fairness doesn't mean everybody wins. It means everybody is in a comparable position with neither at a notable disadvantage. If some people aren't getting what they feel they deserve, it's incumbent on them to make adjustments, man or woman.

I'll speak from the male perspective because I am a male. I have a wide range of choice when it comes to women for romantic companions. I want a woman who is around and not working well into the night, every night, and is undependable because of career demands. Of course I want other things, but that's the issue here. There are many women I am compatible with and who I may be happy with (and make happy). In my case, it's not a woman who is going to work into the night for a month on a Summary Judgment motion. Given choice between an unavailable and undependable woman when it comes to time demands, and a woman with a schedule more compatible with mine, I naturally choose the one who meets my wants and needs better.

The career woman just needs to find a man who is open to her schedule, that's all. A big component of choice and flexibility is....rejection. Too many men and women can't seem to cope with that. What are you going to do? :-)

[Rca2000]

I got my song finished. I am going to post it now.

It goes to the tune of "Who do you think you are", by Bo Donaldson and the Heywoods, from the '70's ( I remember the song well, and have always liked it). Now, it has a bit of a different meaning, for those who would try and tell us what to say, and do.

Heck ,if I get a reasonably positive response here, I may send it to el Rushbo, so he can use it as a parody song.

[Age of Reason]

The only divergence, in my dictionaries, is word swap "boy" for "youth".

That is not the only divergence.

I posted to you a much more significant divergence, which you ignore--

Or perhaps you missed seeing it during "a quick perusal" of my post.

Samuel Johnson did NOT include the word virgin in the first edition of his dictionary; which was published in 1755. I own the set

Most odd, since Samuel Johnson used the word in his other writings often enough:

"The virgin who too soon aspires to celebrity and conquest perishes by childish vanity, ignorant credulity, or guiltless indiscretion." -Samuel Johnson

"But her indignation cannot be thought violent when we consider her not only as a virgin" -Samuel Johnson

"the corrupter of virgin innocence" -Samuel Johnson

"a fine in old times due to the Laird at the marriage of a virgin" -Samuel Johnson

"an orphan virgin robbed of her little portion by a treacherous lover" -Samuel Johnson

And so on.

I suggest you again do a "a quick perusal" of your Johnson dictionary--but a little less quickly this time.

Odd that he would leave out a word he used so often.

Ergo, there was less than nothing incorrect with my use of the word [peruse]

Odd you would say you did a "quick perusal."

How does one "quickly" read thoroughly?

USAGE NOTE Peruse has long meant “to read thoroughly” and is often used loosely when one could use the word read instead. Sometimes people use it to mean “to glance over, skim,” as in I only had a moment to peruse the manual quickly, but this usage is widely considered an error. Sixty-six percent of the Usage Panel finds it unacceptable.

[cyborg]

Age are you a christian?

[Nowhere Man]

I got my song finished. I am going to post it now.

It goes to the tune of "Who do you think you are", by Bo Donaldson and the Heywoods, from the '70's ( I remember the song well, and have always liked it). Now, it has a bit of a different meaning, for those who would try and tell us what to say, and do.

Heck ,if I get a reasonably positive response here, I may send it to el Rushbo, so he can use it as a parody song.

Hmmm, I love that song!!!!! I have a thing for bubblegum music. I even like the DeFranco Family but only in small doses. B-) I'm a big 1970's nut, about the recent car discussion, if I ever could, no car is not complete without an 8-Track tape deck. B-)

[cyborg]

BTW, I am not asking from a self righteous POV. If you aren't a christian then your views/opinions about this issue are neither here nor there with me. I think they're pretty 'unusual' to say the least but then I'm looking at it from a christian POV. If a christian man held your beliefs I would seriously question his faith and ask him to see a pastor/minister,etc. If that is not you, well then carry on.

[Rca2000]

Oh, and BTW-- that "big opportunity" that I thought I may be coming into-- it looks like that was just a mirage, as the guy decided to give the job to his drugged-out, drinking buddy, instead of me

Guess I should have expected as much.........

[nopardons]

Since you have no idea, just how stupid you are, nor the fact that there isn't a single FREEPER who thinks that you're anything but many marbles short of a bag full. I really shouldn't be surprised, at all, that you, who have NEVER seen, not once, the inside of Johnson's dictionary, to argue with me, who owns a first edition set, about what's inside either volume. LOL

As I said before, there are MANY common words, which are NOT to be found in the 1755 editions; "virgin" being but one of them.

Both Samuel Johnson and his contemporaries, were familiar with and used many words, which don't appear in Johnson's dictionary; many of which, I doubt that you've ever used or know.

You're blind, just blind. You claimed that dictionaries, post the sexual revolution changed because of it and the feminazis. I proved you wrong...not just wrong, but damned dead wrong!

But because you are incapable of any reasonable and logical refutation, all you do is post utter drivel. Does that make you feel better about your abject shortcomings, pet? :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk...I skimmed through some words prior to and those who would have appeared AFTER the word "virgin", had it appeared in Johnson's double volume set. You have a problem with that, do you? LOL

You'll probably just keep right on digging that hole, but all that's going to do, is expose you to more ridicule and contempt.

[G Larry]

100% of the marriages the have a pre-nup will need them.

[Nowhere Man]

Fairness doesn't mean everybody wins. It means everybody is in a comparable position with neither at a notable disadvantage. If some people aren't getting what they feel they deserve, it's incumbent on them to make adjustments, man or woman.

Reminds me of a discussion I had with a co-worker about general human nature and so on. This is a bit off-topic, but it was an interesting topic to discuss. There are all kinds of people out there. BTW, he is 26 years old (I'm 39), conservative and we both have Jim Quinn, Glenn Beck, Rush and Hannity on our walkmans and we are both avid Savage listeners. When "Pinky" Reid attacked President Bush earlier, we both got looks of rage on our faces and our jaws dropped.

Anyhoo, back to the discussion. We were talking about the Star Trek TOS (The Original Show) episode about where Kirk and Co. met the Greek God Apollo. Well basically Apollo wanted to care for people and get their worship. I joked saying, "I would not have destroyed him, I'd cut him a deal, we can send people who are on welfare for generations, Apollo could care for them, he'd get what he wants and they get what they want." My co-worker had a serious look on his face and said, "you know what? That would be an excellent idea!!!"

I don't know what to think on human nature, but I'm convinced that there are some people out there that would be more happy being virtual slaves or at least having some or all of their choices dictated to them. I'm sure there are people in Russia that would be happier under the old USSR. I think deep down inside, there is some parts of the brain, some scientists call it the reptilian part of the brain, to were there is a desire to "follow the leader." One question I like to ask about human nature is are we born with free will and we "learn to follow the leader" and have someone or something dictate our choices or is it opposite to where we are born in chains and we need to learn to be free? Hmmm, sounds like another discussion topic with my friend.

I once knew a kid who was in our Twilight: 2000 role playing gaming group. I don't know how or when the topic of the TV show "Roots" came about but he said that he "wouldn't mind being a slave, you had your housing, food, medical care (what there was then), job, etc., provided for." I said, after a long "South Park style" stare, "yeah, but your at the mercy of you master" and a lot of other nasty things. Dunno how familiar you are with Star Trek, but he would have loved to be assimilated into the Borg. Ugh, I don't think being a Borg Drone would look good on the old resume. B-) Needless to say, he was a weird one, he was always weird, but he got more weird as he got older. B-P He ran his Twilight: 2000 character like he was Charlie Manson or something, to make the long story short, the rest of the group got me aside and told me he was making the gaming sessions a virtual Hell so I had to kick him out of the group. He's in my "hall of fame of gaming horror stories." Don't know whatever happened to him, either he is in jail or hopefully got his life straight.

Come to think of it, Charlie Manson is a perfect study for this, up until his release from prison in 1967, he spent half of his life in jail and was used to a controlled life and he begged not to be released because of it. Well, we know what happened. I read this in a good article I have in my college psychology textbook on Manson's history, I still have it but I got to dig it up.

Sorry for my rambling a bit off topic or at least me stepping back and looking at the forest instead of the trees, but your reply reminded me of that discussion and esperiences I've had.

Still on this subject, I often wonder about things like these, I know if I was an alien from another planet observing Humanity, I would ask and ponder on these types of questions as I embarked on my study. Forgive my rambling, I'm just in a thoughtful yet tangent prone mood and I'm tired. Well I got to stop, got to get up for work. B-)

[Nowhere Man]

I might be out of bounds, but I think AOR is way out of his league on the battle of words. Remember me where we discussed where the word "nobby" comes from? That was a good discussion in itself. BTW, I haven't been following the discussion in question too close, got better things to do though. B-D Sometimes though, it is better to stop the online fights after a while and move on, life is too short. Still though, your research is fascinating.

[HitmanLV]

I hear you. Ultimately, we all get what we deserve.

Guys who sit at home alone and complains that women don't like 'nice guys' like him and instead prefer 'jerks' really should consider changing their approach and habits, rather than getting mad at reality.

Gals who dedicate most of their time and energy on a career in their 20s and 30s might find themselves overlooked by men who turn them down in favor of women with less time demands.

People of both sexes who think a negative attitude will win a wonderous romantic companion need to really look at themselves and CHANGE!

[Nowhere Man]

Oh, and BTW-- that "big opportunity" that I thought I may be coming into-- it looks like that was just a mirage, as the guy decided to give the job to his drugged-out, drinking buddy, instead of me

Guess I should have expected as much.........

Ugh...... B-( Well, keep on hanging in there (I know it is tough, I got my bullet wounds in that department too) and although you might not need the advice, but keep asking God for His guidance. I know I kept banging my head against the wall even though I was in control or at least I thought I was until I did that. I do believe God will provide but it is incumbant for the person to do his share of the heavy lifting too.

I've had my fair share of things falling through, including a better paying position at a mortgage company. Well with Greenspan raising rates, I'm better off at where I am because mortgage companies can and do lay off and that could leave me in a lurch.

[Nowhere Man]

I have some thoughts on your reply on the topic at hand, but I'll save those for tomorrow nite, got to get off this thing, give my calico cat (she's 18 years old) her thyroid medication and get to bed. Except for a hyperactive thyroid, she is healthy for her age.

[nopardons]

Thank you! And no, you aren't "out of bounds" at all; you're just observant and intelligent.

Yes, we had a lively and fascinating discussion about the derivation of the word "nobby" and its use. That was a most interesting thread and one we all had a lot of fun on!

AOR needs to stop digging his own grave, but I guess that he enjoys making himself look the fool. :-)

[nopardons]

A bit off topic, yes, but an interesting and though provoking reply.

[Age of Reason]

You're blind, just blind. You claimed that dictionaries, post the sexual revolution changed because of it and the feminazis. I proved you wrong...not just wrong, but damned dead wrong! You have proved nothiing except you have helped to prove my case.

That as the years have gone by, the use of the noun virgin to mean a man has moved up from number 6 to number 2 to . . .

Today--

When there is now is no longer a sex specified for the number 1 definition of the word, virgin--but rather the number 1 definition of virgin today is a "person."

You're the one whose blind.

What part of the following do you fail to understand?

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 = a "person."

And so the women's libbers have won: men are now officially feminzed

[Age of Reason]

As I said before, there are MANY common words, which are NOT to be found in the 1755 editions; "virgin" being but one of them.

So if Johnson's dictionary does not contain the word, virgin--

And yet Johnson knew the word, virgin, existed because he used the word in his other writings (and wherever I've seen him use it to refer to someone it was a female)--

Then why do you drag Johnson's dictionary into this discussion?

[nopardons]

Because YOU, you silly thing, dragged in a 1984 dictionary, claiming that since it was published AFTER the "sexual revolution" and the "feminization of men" ( your words, buddy, not mine! ), that it has only been in recent times than boys/youth/men who had never engaged in sexual congress with another, were called a virgin. And I blew that position to smithereens.

You poor thing, you have no idea what you've posted, why you posted those replies, nor how to debate. Yet, you keep right on posting and posting and posting utter drivel and digging that holes deeper and deeper. Pity that. ;^)

[nopardons]

Damned dead wrong, inaccurate, erroneous, yet again! It was #2 in your 1984 dictionary, which is no doubt NOT the same dictionary that I have, from either date.

IN both of my dictionaries, one published in 1960, the other one, published in 1989, both have it at the sames place...in sixth position. And just in case your math skills are as abjectly lacking, as are your reading comprehension, reasoning, and logic, 1989 is FIVE YEARS LATER than 1984, which is the published date of whatever version of a dictionary you own and quoted.

No, you've lost your "case" long ago! I did NOT "help make your case" in any way and I, unlike you, have proved my case over and over and over and OVER again; ad nauseaum.

The far flung assumption that you've thrown out, saying that for all YOU know ( and who are YOU anyway, but a biliously childish nobody, without any expertise whatsoever in words and word derivations ?), the use of the word VIRGIN, in connection with a man, in 1300 was a homosexual, absolutely ruins your protestations!

So, who used the word VIRGIN in connection with a man in 1300 and proved to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he was a homosexual! Come on.....I double dog dare ya! I TRIPLE dog dare ya! Put up or shut up; you absolute waster of bandwidth, time, and energy.