[Stillness]

For me: Definite yes on coming to an understanding about how things will be done beforehand. I think that the vast majority of people assume way too much only to get blindsided when they find out that their new partner for life has a different view of the partnership.

Definite no on the renewing. It kills one of the chief strengths of the arrangement. It turns "for better or worse" into "as long as it's convenient." Removing the trust and security cripples it. An indivisible unit made of two can give profound advantage.

[jns]

I don't believe that a contract is the way to go. Enforcing the contract almost sounds like bullying the person you are supposedly in love with. What would be helpful is an agreed upon written list of goals and desires for the relationship. The list could be amended from time to time as the dynamics in the relationship change, of course with the consent of both. Every such list should have a caveat that the list is not a contract.

[Trixareforkids]

Definite no on the renewing. It kills one of the chief strengths of the arrangement. It turns "for better or worse" into "as long as it's convenient." Removing the trust and security cripples it. An indivisible unit made of two can give profound advantage.

For me the renew/renegotiation is as important as the initial hashing out. My reasoning for that is we tend to become complacent with ourselves and lose our appreciation of our partners over time. As well as the fact that our views change (sometimes radically) over time and we don't always or even usually talk about them until they are cause for contention. Having to affirm whether you still agree with all the things you originally stated every 5 years is not planning an out, it's planning for those changes. Where there is change or differences they are negotiated and those changes are made to the contract. Think of it like the constitution, the founders knew that things would change and built in the amendment system those amendments add to or override portions of the original, they do not negate the entire constitution but make it stronger, fairer for everyone. A couple could agree from the beginning that there was no "out" clause except a breech of contract, but there would still be a renegotiation/review every 5 years. No one currently gets married with a planned end date but some would be much better off if they did.

I don't think it would increase the divorce rate, it's so high now I think it could drastically reduce it, in part because when faced with a serious review of all the relevant topics some would realize before they ever got married that either marriage or the person they were considering marrying wasn't really for them, but the other part would be because couples kept that initial communication and review going throughout the marriage.

Look at all the people from long-term couples that are on here, we've all muddled through somehow, yet we all know we have areas that need to be worked on. Some of us will work on them some won't, but I think some of those problems could be solved if we were as open/honest in our relationships as we are here.

[Stillness]

we tend to become complacent with ourselves and lose our appreciation of our partners over time.

We shouldn't. That's a simpler and better answer, in my eyes than giving ourselves an out.

[Trixareforkids]

Enforcing the contract almost sounds like bullying the person you are supposedly in love with.

There is plenty of bullying that currently goes on in marriage and the only options are to deal with it or get out. I just mentioned bullying in another post of no/low vs normal/high libido. Any time one of you wants something that the other does not there's potential for bullying. Having a contract would not change that except in that the contract would be a place to negotiate from for change. Talking to someone about something they agreed to is not bullying, it could become bullying if a person agreed to something that they did not intent to or no longer can fulfill. Let's take the low libido example, no marriage contract should ever state a frequency for intimacy, but it could state that lack of intimacy for a certain period of time gave the one who was lacking permission to state their intent to and actually seek physical intimacy outside the relationship, or if that weren't acceptable, breech of contract rights. And again this would be something that could be renegotiated periodically, maybe you start with a normal libido and for whatever reason(s) it changes, you are both otherwise happy, you add a new clause that protects the relationship but allows for physical needs to be met. If the pressure were taken off this area both partners might find themselves inclined to be more generous in other areas of the relationship. Discussing something that you know could spell the end of your relationship in the near term makes us pay attention and try harder to resolve it, contract or no, but ONLY if both people know that the outcome depends on the negotiation.

[Trixareforkids]

Stillness, of course WE SHOULDN'T, but the reality is we do. Saying we shouldn't isn't a better answer because saying it doesn't make it so. Even when we're sweet and loving to one another, maybe especially when we're sweet in loving to one another, we take some things for granted. Sometimes we wake up to it and sometimes we don't until and unless it's pointed out. Also, as I said, there doesn't have to be an renewal clause, but there most certainly should be a renegotiation one, and a breech of contract is not an out clause, if someone declares breech of contract and ends the relationship it's because of the breech that was committed, which is just a different term for what happens now anyway except that there an no specific penalties spelled out now UNLESS the couple had a prenup...

[atskitty2]

Trix, I think the implications are that if there's a contract, that there's some underlying negative agenda, an expecting of bad outcomes and self-preservation measures are unattractive-i think that's where it seems unseemly for some folks.
I totally get what you're saying and I think the fluidity of a contract or listing is what's being missed.

When I married, it was for life. The divorce was devastating and nothing I'd ever expected until just before it happened. I worked very hard to make things good again. Maybe had we had a list, or contract, or something besides our marriage license to refer back to, I could've said something like, "look babe, we agreed here, we were so close back then and able to work this out and compromise... What's changed and what else needs to change to get us back in line?...". Not to use it as a "in your face" evidence that someone screwed up so now I'm leaving type of scenario.

I do think it could lead to a "follow the rules" type of atmosphere, and I wouldn't be OK with that. But again, the idea in my mind at least, is that these contracts, or lists, would be ever changing documentations of what we expect and need in a relationship. I don't necessarily feel it even has to be a legal document, although it could be, but something maybe drawn up in the setting of a counselors office.
I know my needs have changed over the last 10 yrs and they surely will as I go forward. My partner's likely will as well, if I ever choose to be in a committed relationship.

[Archer]

We shouldn't. That's a simpler and better answer, in my eyes than giving ourselves an out.

Here's the thing...99% of people who enter marriages have the intention of it being for life; however, there are some serious wake up calls that happen along the way. If BOTH people are willing to work on it, and BOTH people have this level of commitment, the marriage has the potential to be a very long and fulfilling one.

If neither want to work on it, then they can agree to part ways, and can be a pretty peaceful scenario as well.

What happens most the time though, is that one person wants to give it their all, try to make it work, and the other person is already emotionally, mentally, and/or physically one foot out the door. This can be hell for the partner who continues to sacrifice and try to make it work, while the other is just stacking their deck, waiting for the the right time to make a move--or feels that the benefit of staying married (money, security, children's futures) outweighs the benefit of leaving, so they just tolerate the other person's presence and live in a miserable marriage.

I don't see a contract as anything to enforce within a marriage, or any type of relationship. I have my prerequisites for the type of partner I want...but still I've always been of the mindset is that there are no rules in love. Obligation, guilt, and pressuring are all enemies of love. You have to judge each situation by itself, on a ongoing basis, and be prepared to leave it all if you know you can't find happiness (sometimes easier said than done).

That being said, I feel that a prenup has way more to do with when things go south. It's to protect both people, and leave no surprises. Let me give an example, and change the roles up a bit to see if it makes more sense.

My last girlfriend was a pretty successful entrepreneur, with a few different businesses under her belt. She had built her success from the ground up over the last few years. Her income was multiple times higher than mine. She had joked about a prenup, and I told her absolutely, it would be a smart thing to do.

Had we gone down the road to marriage, I would ask you one thing. What would be less romantic: her asking me for a prenuptial agreement that would protect her assets if things went south, or me telling her that I'm not interested in her protecting her money, and that I refuse to sign any such form.

I hate to be the one to point it out, but romance goes both ways..marriage is for TWO people, and both partners can kill romance. To assume that talking about money and contingency plans is anti-romantic, but that NOT talking about it at all is ok...that to me seems very one-sided.

What it is basically telling the other person is that you don't care about their concerns. And while you are showing everyone your ring that he spent anywhere from 1-3 months salary on, the marriage will most likely reflect more of that as time goes on.

Last romance comparison, then I'm done

What seems more "romantic"?

1) You are thinking about divorce. There are kids, finances, a house, etc involved, and you have no idea how you would even begin to escape this unhappy relationship, and how much it will cost you. You force yourself to cope withe situation, seek therapy, etc, but remain miserable because all you want is out.

2) You are thinking about divorce. You have outlined the agreements for finances, custody, etc. You know exactly what to expect, and you have a logical, fair decision to make. Do you choose to stay with the person you once deeply loved, and do you choose to go to counseling, try your best to make it work? Or do you choose to part ways and find happiness elsewhere, knowing what's in store if you do?

It seems to me that the more romantic situation involves two people who have an easy "out" at any point in the relationship, yet choose to be together because of the love they have for one another, and nothing else.

[Trixareforkids]

Trix, I think the implications are that if there's a contract, that there's some underlying negative agenda, an expecting of bad outcomes and self-preservation measures are unattractive-i think that's where it seems unseemly for some folks.

I do think it could lead to a "follow the rules" type of atmosphere, and I wouldn't be OK with that. But again, the idea in my mind at least, is that these contracts, or lists, would be ever changing documentations of what we expect and need in a relationship. I don't necessarily feel it even has to be a legal document, although it could be, but something maybe drawn up in the setting of a counselors office.

I agree that a lot of people see contracts as negative things to be enforced that's why the more it gets discussed and thought about, the more it can be shaped into something that people think of as for the good of and not just the end of a relationship. I am adamant that it be a legal document however, because marriage IS a legal and binding contract, there's currently just no verbiage to go with it, which is why I believe people enter and leave it too lightly, but with devastating effects for individuals and society.

About a following the rules feeling, don't we all do that now to lesser and greater degrees? We don't do things we'd maybe like to because it would go against the rules for a married person, because it may hurt the other person. But those rules are so general and so many times in marriages they're unspoken that they are not always clear and more hurt comes from that.

[Trixareforkids]

The book I am currently reading (Free to Learn by Peter Gray), just solidified another part of my reasoning for me. "The child's real-life freedom is not restricted by the rules of the game, because the child can at any moment choose to leave the game. That is another reason why the freedom to quit is such a crucial aspect of the definition of play. Without that freedom, rules of play would be intolerable." I would translate that statement to marriage in the following way.

The "players" must be free to leave the marriage and the rules must constantly be up for negotiation otherwise the relationship becomes intolerable.

That statement is based on this passage from Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky, speaking of social play "The... paradox is that in play [the child] adopts the line of least resistance-she does what she most feels like doing because play is connected with pleasure-and at the same time she learns to follow the line of greatest resistance by subordinating herself to the rules and thereby renouncing what she wants, since subjection to rules and renunciation of impulsive action constitute the path to maximum pleasure in play. Play continually creates demands on the child to act against immediate impulse. At every step the child is faced with a conflict between the rules of the game and what she would do if she could suddenly act spontaneously..." Peter Gray goes on to say "Vygotsky's point, of course, is taht the child's desire to play is so strong that it becomes a motivating force for learning self-control. The child resists impulses and temptations that would run counter to the rules because the child seeks the larger pleasure of remaining in the game."

I think you can translate that directly to marriage. We enter into the "game of" marriage because we expect it to be enjoyable, we learn to exhibit self-control and adhere to the rules of the marriage because the "game" is enjoyable and we want it to continue. Sometimes we need to change the rules as we go along to encompass new situations (health issues, move to an unknown area, lessening or increase of income) and new players (children), but the game only stays enjoyable if all players agree to the rules.

Some people won't like the comparison of marriage to children at play, but good marriages are JUST like children at play. You're playing because you want to, because it's fun, because even though you sometimes have to control your own impulses and temptations for more immediate satisfaction or gratification, you know you are doing so to keep the game going and have more long lasting fun. But no marriage is fun if when you don't understand the rules or have the power to change them.