[Trixareforkids]

I've been thinking about marriage contracts for a few years now, and it just makes more and more sense to me from both the practical and romantic side. I feel that if the practicalities don't kill the romance it's a real or good romance and if they do, well it was just a passing or lustful one that would have died of its own accord anyway. I also think that most relationships end from a lack of communication, having renewable contracts would only aid communication by forcing it to actually happen. For the hubby and I a break up is final, so when either of us has felt that we were maybe nearing the end and we'd sit down for a real heart-to-heart it's been like a contract renewal/renegotiation period, where we both knew that if we didn't hash out whatever it was that it would be over. I think, that having a set renewal/renegotiation point would make all couples think more about their relationships and either ease out of it or really work to continue it. Having talked about the big issues before entering into a committed relationship would also, I feel, ensure that couples that weren't truly compatible would figure it out much soon and hopefully spare both more pain down the line. It would also address the practical things that can be so hard to hash out at the end of a relationship, so that if and when an end does come there's less animosity which would go a long way toward making the moving on easier. I really can see no downsides to marriage contracts. Actually I'd love to hear feedback on other's thoughts.

The things I think should be covered in a relationship/marriage contract are:
Finance: How much of income will be shared/separate, how will expenses be covered (50/50 or % of individual income to total income, or one supporting the other through school/child rearing, etc.), previous personal debt, savings for future purchases of joint property, disposition of joint property if/when relationship reaches an end point.
Personal Time: A clear spelling out of expectations of time spent apart, how much time alone or apart is needed for personal well being, any activities that would be deemed breech of contract during time spent apart.
Sex: This could be graphic or general, but I believe the more graphic the better. Is the relationship monogamous? If it is open what is and is not allowable? Fetishes or kinks and if they are allowed to be pursued outside of the relationship if they are something your partner is not able or willing to fulfill. How periods of low or missing sex drive on the part of one may be handled by the other, with clearly defined time frames.
Children: Expectations, responsibility for BC, contingencies in the case of unexpected pregnancy. Custody and support expectations should the contract not be renewed after the birth of children.
Breeches: Consequences of breech of contract.

Do you think your current (or a past) relationship would benefit from being contractual (with renewal/renegotiation periods of let's say 5 years)? And are there any additional items that you think should be added?

[Archer]

First, let's address the "romance" aspect of it.

I am right there with you; if talking about practicalities is enough to kill the romance, then the bond was never that strong to begin with. From a male perspective, a lot of women talk about a giant engagement ring, a huge, expensive wedding, etc but God forbid a man suggest a prenup. Wow, total mood killer right? But it's ok to spend $5-10k+ on a ring and $20k+ on a single day, even if every day after that is utter misery. Even thinking about this makes me sick to my stomach.


I personally have seen many many relationships follow this pattern:

> Two people fall in love
> Spend a bunch of money on ring, wedding, honeymoon
> Enter marriage in debt
> Have children in more debt
> Woman goes to school afer having children while husband works/supports family, creating more debt
> Woman leaves with children and education, taking half or more of everything
> Man forced to pay child support/alimony with little to no contact with his children
> Woman finds a new husband and their new family benefits from everything the ex-husband invested into
> Man is disillusioned about ever marrying/trusting someone like that again


Basically, the man risks spending his entire life fighting debt, and is rewarded with more debt. I wish I hadn't seen this scenario happen over and over, but it does.

I feel very strongly that most men have a lot more to lose in a nasty divorce; although, I will say that it isn't uncommon for a woman to just say she wants the kids and take off without a fight, this happens sometimes too. But the ability she has to wage total war on her ex-husband, if she so chooses, cannot be understated.


As far as an actual contract, I think finance and children would be at the top of that list. Sex evolves throughout a relationship. It has to be there, or the relationship fails...but I think that the contract should be more of a contingency plan if it fails, rather than a way to bind someone to a certain set of sexual actions throughout the marriage. Sex, personal time, etc. would probably fall more along the lines of a moral/verbalized contract than a written one, and one that would be much more fluid throughout the marriage.

For instance...I have never cheated in any relationship I've been in, but if my spouse straight up refused to have sex with me (or seek therapy about it), I don't know how long I would feel obligated to any promises of fidelity that I had given her. I establish very early on in every relationship that sex is a big deal, and that there should be a big reason for flat out denying it. Sex, and even more specifically the commitment of loyalty to one partner, is not something to be taken for granted.


I would say you were spot on about a lot of your key points:

Finances: At this point in my life, I personally would never marry a person in serious debt, or with a horrible credit rating. I also wouldn't marry someone who hasn't been somewhat successful with some type of career in their own way. If I meet a woman that makes me think, "Wow, I wonder if I'm ready for someone like this yet" then I know I'm on the right track

I feel that I've just worked way too hard to take on anything else, no matter how sweet/beautiful she is to me. That being said, any type of break from work for child-rearing would be up to the woman; I personally believe that she should have the option to go back to work, receive promotions, earn recognition and bonuses, in the same way a man would (if she chooses), and the option of hiring a nanny. Some women are excellent stay at home moms, but some of them lose their mind and continually feel taken for granted! It's not an easy life, by any means. Whether it be a career mother, or a stay at home mother, there is no doubt that I would be happier with a woman who felt empowered by whichever situation she was in. But for finances, two working parents would make this category a lot easier to deal with. And I'm not really of the mindset right now that I want to put someone through school, unless she already has a pretty solid education/career to begin with.


Children: Hands down, both people should have 50/50 joint custody in the event things go south. Anything other than that leaves the children open to being used as weapons. Not only that, but you both enter a marriage under the assumption that the other person isn't a child-abuser/psychopath, so is it that much of a stretch to assume that future children would be safe from harm in the event things go south between the parents? Throwing up baseless restraining orders without any evidence to back them up seriously needs to become a thing of the past. And if either partner does this, without accurate proof, they absolutely should be jailed for perjury. I have no pity on someone who wants to steal their children away from a partner by fraudulently claiming abuse, running off, and contiuing to receive child support from this forcefully absent parent.


Geez. I sound so jaded in this post lol...these are some of my thoughts. Having been married, I will say that it may take me a long time to find someone that I would marry again; but these are my standards and I'm sticking to them

[jen1447]

With all due respect for the opinions offered and for those who've offered them, if these were the rules, I'd be single forever. (I probably will be anyway, but still ....)

[Trixareforkids]

With all due respect for the opinions offered and for those who've offered them, if these were the rules, I'd be single forever. (I probably will be anyway, but still ....)

Jen, for me the point of the contract would be that the COUPLE defined the rules, not a boilerplate contract. Lack of communication before commitment doesn't just cost the couple, when it comes to divorce it really costs us all in the long run.

Archer: Again, I think ALL of the parts of the contract should be open for negotiation. I know a few women who are totally NOT down with raising kids on their own (me being one of them, which is part of the reason why the hubby and I waited 18 years). 50/50 wouldn't always work for a couple, ignoring completely the children as weapons issue, some people are not emotionally suited to raising children w/o a partner, my oldest sister being one of them-both her EXs got the kids. I do believe contact/visitation/joint custody should NEVER be denied to a parent who wants it (as long as the children are willing-WHOLE separate topic) and is not abusive.

I know couples with all different kids of situation, financially some share everything (like the hubby & I), some share bills 50/50 with separate savings/spending accounts. A couple that split bills based on income with separate savings/spending accounts. There is no one way, problems arise when there's no agreement beforehand, when one partner dictates the terms to the other, and it's usually the higher earner dictating the terms, making the lesser earner feel inferior no matter what their other contributions may be. Then there's the "oops, surprise, I've 40K in debt" after marriage. So many possible scenarios that could all be handled agreeably IF they were discussed rather than just dealing with them after the fact or as they come up (which is where resentment comes in).

As for sex, since it runs neck & neck with finance for problem starter, I really don't feel it should be unspoken. Not that things don't change over time, that's what renegotiation is for. And a contract would/could never bind someone to sexual actions, just ideals. This is more for what is and is not permissible, for instance, if you have a contract saying that you can seek sex outside the relationship, you cannot be found in breech for doing so.

Now this is not to say that a couple couldn't STILL find themselves miserable before the end of a contract period, but even that could be addressed in the contract.

[Archer]

Lack of communication before commitment doesn't just cost the couple, when it comes to divorce it really costs us all in the long run.

I agree, communication is key. I would say 99% of any of these problems come from a lack of communicating expectations beforehand in one way or another.

[Claret]

I would love to reply fully to this Archer, but unfortunately I'm on my way out for the evening. Just want to point out that for everything that you say has happened to you, has happened to women as well. I could keep you busy repeating stories of my divorce from my ex, the cost in money and goods and the mental toll it takes on everybody concerned. Just also keep in mind, it has been proven time and time again, that in the case of divorce the men normally come out of it financially better off than a woman, especially when children are involved.

There are two sides to every coin and sometimes it pays to look at the other side. If you get burnt by one person, only that person has burnt you and you can't paint every other relationship with the same brush.

I'm really sorry that you seem to have been taken down the hard side of divorce and that it has skewed your perception of marriage and how to "contract" for a good one. Don't use your past experience to ruin a potential good relationship because of your contract conditions whether they be spoken or unspoken.

[Trixareforkids]

you seem to have been taken down the hard side of divorce and that it has skewed your perception of marriage and how to "contract" for a good one. Don't use your past experience to ruin a potential good relationship because of your contract conditions whether they be spoken or unspoken.

Ah Claret, based on your comment to Archer, I'm really interested to hear your opinion on marriage contracts in general. It would appear that you like Jen are against the idea, I'm as interested in view points from those who oppose as I am from those that agree or partially agree.

Marriage is continually evolving. There was a point at which marriage was no better than slavery for the woman, where women were "given" into marriage, we've come a long way since then (sadly not the whole world), and I see this as a next logical step. I don't see contracts being required for a while yet, but I can see them becoming mainstream before too awful long, especially if they're not seen as restrictive (as prenups are now) but rather just defining.

How many times in a relationship have you said, thought or been told "how was I supposed to know" or "I'm not a mind-reader" or "if I'd known you felt that way"? That is the purpose of (and thought process for) marriage contracts.

[Archer]

There are two sides to every coin and sometimes it pays to look at the other side. If you get burnt by one person, only that person has burnt you and you can't paint every other relationship with the same brush.

I'm really sorry that you seem to have been taken down the hard side of divorce and that it has skewed your perception of marriage and how to "contract" for a good one. Don't use your past experience to ruin a potential good relationship because of your contract conditions whether they be spoken or unspoken.

Yup, pretty much. I agree with you that I SHOULD be able to treat every case on its own, and I SHOULD be able to put everything else behind me, but I am still on guard. I can't help it, and I wish it was different. I would be more than happy to hear your side of what you went through when you do have the time, if you are willing to share it.

[atskitty2]

I totally agree that marriage is evolving, and that's why I think this isn't a far-fetched idea. For me it's just a logical progression. I think there can be varying degrees of detail in each couple's contract, and items addressed can be chosen individually.

I think you mistook my meaning about the romance a little, but it isn't terribly important for discussion purposes.
Like Archer, I doubt I'll ever find someone I want to marry again, but if I do, I wouldn't be opposed to this.

I am one of those women who took very little away from my marriage. I CHOSE not to. I knew legally I was entitled to half, but my goal was not to stick it to him. His income far exceeded mine and almost all we had was from his salary. Our home and vehicles were paid for, and we had no debt otherwise. I took what I felt was fair according to my income over those years, even tho we shared accounts.
I couldn't have afforded to maintain the home-it made no sense for me to have it...he paid it off with his own earnings really.

My point is, some people do the right thing even when there's reason not to. I didn't need a legal document to tell me to do what's right and fair. I couldn't have a very peaceful existence if I'd taken what wasn't mine, as I saw it.
The sad fact is that most people are going to wind up in unhappy marriages and/or divorce. Maybe that can be helped if communication and clear expectations are outlined from the start.

[Trixareforkids]

It's nice to see a healthy attitude in a 1st hand account of divorce, I've known other amicable divorces, but they are MUCH fewer than the contentious ones.

I honestly had to go looking for your comment because I thought I had missed something, but when I found it on the other post I could see where you might think I was referring to what'd you'd said, it actually wasn't that but conversations I've had with friends on this topic who totally rejected the idea as a "romance killer" (that actually came from a gay man).

The opposition to the idea I get most often is, people will never do it. That one both annoys and amuses me. People have said that about a LOT of things that we now do on a regular basis and consider normal, which is why it amuses me. It annoys me because they say that rather than that THEY wouldn't want to do it and explaining why.

I love my mother's response, which was close to Jen's, she said she never liked anyone's rules, not even her own, and therefore, there's no way she'd ever sign a marriage contract (even though she'll never marry again and never planned to marry in the 1st place). She's fun to debate/argue with.

I'm still hoping for more oppositional opinions to get a good rousing debate going

Maybe if I throw out the question What is the purpose of marriage?