I, Cymanca, and maybe others here have stated our view that post nup agreements between FBSs and FWSs make a lot of sense.

But we're BSs.

The notion of a post nup would be to create a legally binding agreement that states, in effect, that in the event of future infidelity by either spouse, the betrayed spouse has first right of refusal to all jointly owned assets and primary custody of children if he/she seeks a divorce from the WS.

The details might end up different, but you get the point.

The purpose of such an agreement would be two fold as I see it: provide both a disincentive for future infidelity by either spouse AND in the event it happens anyway, provide some level of civil justice in light of existing "no fault" laws. (I admit, I'm really, really pissed I had to fork over a large % of my retirement funds to a WS who ended up marrying the [censored] who makes over twice my salary.)

Cy has stated and I agree that a truly repentent FWS ought to RUSH to agree to such an agreement.

Your reaction?

Please, let's not get distracted with the legal ins and outs, specific wording, etc. - we'll address that later once we air out the concept.

Thanks,
WAT

I love the concept.

I would have rushed to sign it (if he'd cared to actually save the marriage after I cheated)...

... and I wish I'd had it when he'd cheated years before... I think that might have sped the healing process for me... considerably. It would have, at least, given me some peace of mind, that's for darned sure!

PS: I don't blame you, WAT, for being a irked (to say the least) that you had/have to pay your ex-wife for choosing her affair over your marriage. Someone very near and dear to my heart was in that same boat with you and has had to do the same thing. It stinks.

As a FWW, I would have gladly signed a post nup agreement clearly spelling out the penalties for future infidelity.

My H and I had a verbal agreement prior to the marriage that "he who walks away, walks away with nothing".

I stood by that agreement when I left (except we did share custody of the kids) and WH has pretty much stuck to it. But since he was the primary breadwinner, that throws a monkey wrench into it.

WAT,

I fear that you have inadvertently misstated my position. The infidelity penalty is for my WS to sign, not me. I would consider it an insult to have to sign a postnuptual agreement given the circumstances of her A. That is one of my boundaries.

My agreement on this matter was clearly delineated by a ceremony 9 years ago where I vowed to love her and I pledged her my fidelity.

My apologies, Cy. I did not intend to misrepresent you. If you like, I will edit out your incorrect, implied agreement. But I suggest we leave it as is, clarified by this exchange, and consider it adds to the discussion.

Respectfully,
WAT

Wat,

No problem at all.Leave everything as is. I am sure my position will provoke some discussion. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If a FWS is truly committed, he/she should have no problem with this. I struggled (and still struggle) with expressing how truly sorry I was/am, and I think signing a legal document like that would have helped me feel like I was taking a real, physical step towards repairing the marriage.

H and I cancelled my email accounts and changed my cell phone number together. Like the NC letter, I think a post nup would be a thoughful, truly repentant gesture made by the FWS.

During my A, I always felt that if I left H, I would not want or take anything. I figured it was my choice to leave, so I would get nothing. A friend of mine's WH, on the other hand, left the M and wanted EVERYTHING. I don't get it.

I'm sorry about your situation, WAT. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> You've helped so many on this board, including me.

All blessings,

KM

Katie,

I applaud you for your stance and for the acceptance that you show for your actions. If every "repentant" spouse behaved the same, a lot more M's would be PERMANENTLY saved.

Thanks Cy - yes, your position is worthy of discussion.

I'll start by saying you're right. You shouldn't need to make such a gesture - you already made it. But so did your wife, right? Mine did too. Nonetheless, I was emotionally AND financially raped.

Do you think a FWS - regardless of their level of commitment - might be less inclined to sign such an agreement if the FBS won't?

KM - thanks for your input and I'm glad to have helped. I wish you well.

WAT

WAT,

I too am getting raped, but that is of little consequence to me. My WW on the other hand has always been concerned with the accoutrements of financial success.

Do I think that the FWS might be more hesitant to sign? I am sure there are some.

We call them serial adulterers.

I would enthusiastically sign a PN Agreement stating that if I engaged in an A again, I would release first refusal rights to jointly property/persons to the BS.

I have a caveat, however. I would not sign an agreement that simply gave the BS absolute power to ruin me. I am not sure if that stance is totally understood, but my point is I agree it is repentant to sign a document that provides protection to the BS. I do not agree to sign a document that makes the BS lord over the WS.

Probably still not explained well. If not, let me know. I am totally willing to hash it out.

overall, I completely agree to the provision of protection to the BS.

CY -

Good point.

Maybe some FWSs will weigh in on this point? Does it matter that the FBS also agree?

I stated it as a two way agreement primarily to establish the goose and gander thingy, thinking that shared, equal risk was also a statement by the FBS of sincerity and, frankly, to sweeten the pot for the FWS to enter the agreement.

WAT

Well, I skew it all because the BS (my then-H when I cheated) had ALREADY CHEATED - SEVERAL TIMES, HIMSELF... which would mean that YES, I would have expected him to sign as well.

Is this in reference to what I stated?

patriot92,

With all due respect, and I truly mean that, when you were the WS, did you not lord it over your BS and also were in the position of absolute power to ruin her life both emotionally and financially?

Pat -

Absolutely NOT AT ALL. I hadn't seen your reply when that was posted.

And thanks for your input.

WAT

New Beginning,

My point would not include you since BOTH spouses are WS. In your situation I would agree with you.

The first time my husband cheated, he volunteered without any solicitation from me, that: "I will even sign a contract that I'll never cheat on you again, Resilient".

This, of course, was after the affair died its natural death that Harley talks about (approx 13 months from D-day), and my then-husband wanted to reconcile.

At the time, I thought the idea ridiculous. But looking in my rear view mirror now, I think if I would have had him do so perhaps his repeat performance 7 years later might have been less likely. <shrugs>

Jo (a Former BW, never a WS)

I think the term lord over, in my case, would be up for debate. However, in a position to financially and emotionally ruin her? Yes, I was. It was simply wrong. In my estimation though, the emotional destruction power was mine directly and the financial destruction power could or could not have been an indirect by-product.

I speak only from how my situation occured. My A, and much of my existance for that matter, thrived on secrecy and self-serving protection, so I find it difficult to say I lorded over her with anything. My A was timidly hidden and I never wanted anyone to know. Lording, it seems to me, would be the kind of thing a WS does as a manipulative overt tactic against the BS. Blatant affairs, attempting to control the BS or the recovery process to the benefit of self during recovery... so on.

I obviously wielded emotional destruction. Financially, there is more to it than to simply say yes or no, is what I suppose I am getting at.

Which brings me to my question from this. If it is something that deems repenting, the absolute power the WS takes, are you saying it is ok given the circumstances to hand this kind of power over to the BS?

just for giggles.....as a bs didnt i have the power on d-day to totally destroy my then wh??? financially i would have cleaned his clock.....work wise if i exposed i would have ruined him socially.....i allready had the power to destroy the ws......didn't I????

I believe that in a recovered marriage that, yes, a post nuptial agreement would be in order. I do feel that it should be signed by both the WS and the BS...In a recovered marriage you should both be back on equal footing...or at least Mr. W and I believe that...Further, Dr. Harley says that it is the BS that is indeed most vulnerable to having an affair at this point: "revenge affair"...If only the FWS is expected to sign, then I believe that that implies an attitude of the BS to continue to hold the affair over the head of the FWS, and THAT would not make for a truly recovered marriage in my opinion(Cymanca, in light of what I just stated, I would like to hear your opposing viewpoint when you have the chance)...Addtionally I believe that each spouse should be represented by independent counsel as far as this document is concerned...Keep in mind that Mr. W is an attorney...Should we decide to sign a post nuptial agreement, I have no problem with him drawing up such agreement, I however would wish for another attorney to have a "look see" before I would agree to sign...In my opinion, that is just the wisest way to handle it...

I will also add that this was a real "hot bed" issue for us during my affair...obviously as a WS, I was resolute in my stance of not signing... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />...ARGH!!! I have 100% NO PROBLEM with doing so now...IMO, that is how a BS can gauge whether or not they have a WS or a FWS on their hands...

Mrs. W

nikko - I think that depends on where you live re: local laws and even the Judge on your case.

For the record, my suggestion for consideration of post nups is not with the motivation of revenge. Not to "ruin" the WS. It's for future prevention and when that doesn't work, for SOME justice to keep the BS to have to pay for the WS's "crime."

So, how would you have cleaned his clock? Granted, SAHM's (don't recall if you were one) can get substantial alimony payments. Perhaps this is sufficient a disincentive for many breadwinners.

I guess the concept of a post nup is most appealing to sitch's like mine - I lived in a community property state and absent cooperation from my wife, everything gets split 50/50 - after you pool all the assets. There is no justice at all in that scheme.

WAT

I would have no problem signing one as to infidelity in my now marriage even (because I was a WW in the last one).

The real issue is where do we stop with that kind of behavior?? Even though I take ownership of my actions what about a post nuptual agreement that states my spouse will meet all my EN's?? Not gain weight? or on down the line??

Hey WAT...I'm also interested in your viewpoint regarding whether both parties should have to sign...

Mrs. W

Also WAT...just a thought...perhaps adding the term "POST NUPTIAL" to this thread title would yield more opinions for discussion...What say you?

Mrs. W

Good idea - DONE!

My view is that both parties should have the same status. For the FBS, it's a "good faith" statement, notwithstanding the prior demonstration of faithfulness (pun intended) and the FWS would be revealing much, IMHO, NOT to agree.

WAT

WAT...

Looks like we're on the same page with our views... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Kinda funny timing, I just brought up this topic with Mr. W last night...I told him that I would be willing to sign a post nuptial should he ever wish for me too-today is 1 year post d-day for us, not sure if that's what made me think of this or not...I hadn't even looked at your thread yet...I think I just want to show him in every way possible how very sorry, grateful, and committed to him that I am...

Great idea for a thread, btw...Perhaps it will provide an opening for some healthy dialogue between any recovering spouses here...

Thanks!

Mrs. W

I'm not sooooo naive to believe that there aren't some sticky wickets to get past to actually do one of these.

I get the sense that many folks consider PRE-nups to be unromantic, indicators of suspiciousness, and distracting from the "real" vows, etc. "Only people who aren't sincere need 'em." (Maybe they're the ones who are naive?) While the need for a post-infidelity nup has a prima facie better argument, I wouldn't be surprised to hear some of the same criticisms as for pre-nups.

Let's say there's consensus for post nups. Isn't the next logical argument for pre-nups from the git go? A grass roots uprising against no fault divorce laws?

WAT

From Penalty Kill

First, as a FWW, I would have no problem signing such a document. I'd do it right now, as a matter of fact.

Whether or not my H should sign it would be up to him; it wouldn't matter to me one way or the other. If he did cheat and decided to opt out of the M, he's welcome to his fair share of our assets, as the law permits. He's worked hard to get us where we are.

Hi pk - that's a crystal clarion call of your commitment.

Congrats to you.

WAT

If my husband came up today and asked me to sign a postnup stating this, I would sign without blinking. If I ever do this to my husband again, I dont deserve another chance...in that case I will have bigger problems to deal with such as a possible sexual addiction and in that case I would want my kids protected from myself and my husband to to protect them and himself.

Just my 2cents

Dorry

I thought about YOU in particular when I read this thread ... and I was thinking "Gosh, if Dorry and Sprint had a post-nup agreement .. it might have saved some of the mess that happened"

but

water under the bridge

But I was just thinking about you and you posted

Pep

What if it ends up wit the route of prove / disprove infidelity?

It sounds like it could turn into a non "no fault" D argument.

What if there's no infidelity, but one spouse refuse to meet ENS?

Well, my guess is if one spouse is refusing to meet ENs then there would probably be a refusal to sign a post nuptial regarding that refusal...Right???


Mrs. W

Wat and Cy.... and anyone else interested, I would like to get a response to my assertions and statements on this thread. That I even have a caveat seems to be a point of contention and I would like to explore that, if you don't mind.

Thanks for the time you take.

pat.

Well Pat, what is your caveat? What is it that you are afraid that the post nuptial would do? What part of you would feel "lorded over" if Froz were willing to sign too? Do you feel "lorded over" about something else right now in your relationship?

Mrs. W

Hi Pat

The FWS would only be ruined if they cheated again. If the FWS chooses to divorce for whatever other reason, the clause is not invoked.

If the FWS feels they can prevent themselves from having another affair, do you still object to this ?

I am not a believer that it is unmet needs that causes an affair - I believe unmet needs help create an envirnoment where a person becomes more vulnerable to an affair - but they aren't the cause.

I believe ALL marriages will go through times where one person can't meet the needs of another...or marriages where one person isn't into doing marriages...Best case scenario - both are willing to commit to MB prinicipals and stick to them everyday....but in alot of marriages people dont.

So I believe in looking inside to protect yourself when those needs aren't being met - protect your vulnerabilities, coping skills, etc...have a good support system set up and good communication with your spouse during those times...

Otherwise - military spouses can't be included in that cause it's unfair for a military spouse to try to meet eachother's needs 10000 miles apart!!! Or in my case, a husband who doesn't believe in MB. He is meeting my needs today - but what if he didn't tomorrow....Gotta protect myself from vulnerability.

So I dont believe a post nup should include "needs meeting" - but definately should have a caveat about the 2nd time around in an affair...both H and I have an understanding now since we both had affairs...next time, there is no "second chance" - neither of us can go through this all again....



Awww thanks pep <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Sprint would have signed this thinking he was immune post my A....I dont think it would have prevented him from having one though...but it would have changed the aftermath recovery - that's for sure!!!

Pat,

I think what you are saying is you think the penalty in the post-nup should be significant, but not extreme/draconian.

If that's what you meant, then that raises the issue of what is an appropriate "EA/PA penalty" in a pre or post-nup.

I'm curious to know what WS and BS think.

Thanks

I'll tell you how much I believe in this entire concept, and give an example of what I would have included in the post-nup, which I can say because it's what I did...

A tiny history: My ex cheated several times in the late 1980's... my affair with a co-worker happened in 1999 (I ended it after I slept with OM once and told my then-H myself), my ex wouldn't forgive me and my affair gave him "permission" to cheat again, which he did, with several women. I filed for divorce. We'd been married 20 years.

During the months until the divorce was final, I met my (now)H. I struggled with if it was infidelity, because in my mind the marriage was over (more on this in a second). I had a relationship with him anyway. My ex continued his relationships, as well. We lived apart and the divorce became final quickly.

My H lives in Canada, my ex and I lived in California. Community property state. I could have gotten alimony and half his retirement, along with a few other things. One of our three kids was still a minor (16), the other two adults. The kids were with me until the day I left for Canada, at which time their dad moved back in the house. I had the clothes on my back, some books, some CD's and a few pictures.

To be honest, which I always am... it did take a few weeks for the reality (the beginning of consequences) of what I'd actually done to hit me. I'd left with nothing because I felt that I deserved nothing. My relationship was infidelity (at least in the legal sense, if not the moral sense) because the divorce was not yet final when we began it.

So... I know for a fact that I would have signed the agreement and lived up to it. Because I did, without the written agreement.

I will say that I have been blessed beyond all reason in spite of myself and my poor choices. My ex and I get along very well, and he has been kind and generous (even buying me plane tickets to come out when I couldn't afford them myself)... my children (all now in their 20's) love me...

None of that takes away the worst of the consequences, which by the way are all inside this soul of mine - I have punished myself far more than anyone else could. But that's not the subject of this thread... it's the question of whether or not a WS wouldn't agree to a post-nup... and like I said, I agreed without ever seeing one and have lived up to it...

I'm with you on this Dorry...an affair is a very selfish choice by the WS...and their own issues are what allowed them to make that poor life choice!

When I replied to JM, I did so under the pretense of no infidelity AND the question was about one spouse's refusal to meet EN's, which I think is different than a spouse who is either unable at the time to meet whatever EN or unaware of the EN, or even just plain human in traversing the normal peaks and valleys of the marital relationship...I also believe that including EN's in a post nuptial is unrealistic...not to mention putting certain EN's in such an agreement would deem it unenforcable...there are limitations to legal contracts...

Which makes me "wonder" exactly what the burden of proof for infidelity would be regarding the enforcment of a post nuptial agreement...Especially when it comes to emotional affairs...Hmmm...think I'll have to get Mr. Wondering to weigh in here, lest I be doomed to eternal "wondering"... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W

enuff of the 'wonder' puns already <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> ... just go make yerownself a sammich on some dayum WonderBread and be done with it!

IF I were to write out a non-legal document post nup ... it might have looked like this: (and I am totally shooting from the hip here so excuuuuuuse me if I don't pass the MR WONDERFUL legal test <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> *joking* )

I Mr Pep formally known as Mr Poophead

acknowledge that I did commit adultery for (time) with (person)

I return to this M with the ever-lovely Mrs Pep with the full awareness that if I have another inappropriate adulterous relationship with (name) or any other person, I will forfet all but 10% of the marital worth upon legal separation or divorce DUE to any future emotional or physical affair on my part ... ((( or I may choose option B .... which is to divide the marital assets 50/50 ... but have myself voluntarilly castrated *joking* )))

I, with full clarity of mind, realize I am not to have secret relationships that involve sweet-talk or physical expressions of affection including but not limited to sexual intercourse, BJ's, kissing on the mouth or touching body parts other than brief handshakes or non-sexual hugging

(dayum this is hard to write !)

I sign this document acknowledging my beautiful Peppery wife has assumed a risk when she has taken me back after my one and only and nevermore indescretion

hey !! good huh?

LOL

Pep

Pep=Silly Left Coaster <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W<--------loves puns

I think I made my wife feel unsafe with my assertions. I am not sure, since of course... I am in class yet again while my wife sits on hold waiting for me.

I hate that I even posted. Truly. I don't have the time to defend the assertions and I am being misunderstood anyway.

Pardon my projection. I hate how I destroy my wife by existing. Her pain is such a horrible thing to watch her endure....what can I do?? God I would do anything. I have to remain in reality, though.... I made a commitment to school(over in just a few days) so I have to complete it.

nevermind.... I will move on to my thought process.

I have been divorced once. I live in a bible belt state full of deadbeat dads(seems like they are everywhere). I hate the legal system. I think people in the legal system for the most part are effing crooks. When I was an active duty soldier, my wife-turned-evil-witch, took our homelife situation to the commander(I did not beat, touch hurt or otherwise harm her) which got ME kicked out of the house and put in the barracks. My house. She then filed for divorce... and of course because she did not have a job at the time, I ended up paying her alimony(on E-5 pay, mind you), child support, I had to jointly apply for a car loan so she could get a car because her credit was crap, and if I didn't, then I was going to lose my car, I lost things I owned before I married her and I couldn't really fight for my son because where is an E-5 on active duty gonna put a kid? I was manipulated and I could not afford an attorney because I was already going to have to pay for HER attorney. And court costs. And just about anything else she wanted lest I be marketed as this aforementioned deadbeat dad type.

She lorded over me and I was powerless, and I hated her for it. I am still pissy about it. So, you bring up a legal document and have the FWS sign but don't apply the same accountablilty to the BS(when a marriage SHOULD be fair for both regardless)and I get really uncomfortable with the whole idea. Call it my lack of understanding teh legal system. Frankly, I hate how a system that tries to be fair on paper is so screwed up now. Because people redefine the english language or find loopholes or whatever.

I would sign any document legal or otherwise that protects my wife and also provides reparations to her for this currently mythical future affair. Sure, half the property. ******, more than half. And payments for a year even... or whatever. I am not against paying for my mistakes.

But, from my past experience, I had this seemingly fine wife before who seemed nice and said she loved me and so on. Blah blah. Then the evil demon came out and I was caught unaware. Now, the biggest thing that killed me was that during her whole time of being mean and evil and just manipulative, the legal system was WITH HER. Backing her up. Making me foot the bill while she spat in my face. And was already seeing some ****** who I am pretty sure was in the picture well before she ever popped the divorce zinger on me.

being powerless is just not a position I want to be in again.

but then... as I think about it right now.... Maybe I have made a big deal out of nothing. Silly, but a possible missunderstanding on my part.

A PN agreement would only be executed IF the named offense was proven to have occured again yes? If THAT statement is true, then I would sign any PN agreement my wife could muster.

I will not have an affair again. That I know to be true.

stupid I guess... legal issues are a real hot button with me because I now nothing about being a manipulative [censored] to get my way in the court room.... but it seems everyone I know does.

sorry for the rant. I just really wish I wasn't here right now.

Pat...

Sorry you're having a rough time...not sure if you read my original post regarding a post nuptial agreement within a recovered marriage so I've quoted myself below...Sounds like you would be okay something like that, right? Would Froz?

By the way, had you have had either pre-nuptial or post nuptial in place in your first marriage, you might have avoided much of the hassle...marital contracts are more about protection than punishment, IMO...

Sending prayers for you and Froz...




Mrs. W

I saw what you said, girl-dubya, and from what you wrote, I agreed.

Hassle? Man, that word seems to minimize BIG TIME what I went through during that time. Hassle is something a bad waiter gives you.

but I digress....

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> OK Drama King <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />...Hassle, hustle, tustle, bustle...JIHAD?...Bum Deal? H E L L on Earth? Whatever...Pat, even when you're havin' a bad day, you still crack me up... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />...Mr. W says the "but I digress" thing too...you silly boys..."girl-dubya", I kinda like that...I just might have to use it, course I'll have to wait until this threads dies so that I can pretend that I came up with it and not give you credit...you knew that though, right? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

"Girl Dubya"<------just trying it on for size, I dunno <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> What cha think? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

wat---my response was to the response patriot posted back there. more or less he was saying he didnt want to be lorded over and give the bs that much power.....well didnt i have that kinda power anyway??

and yes even in nj....financially i would have been way more than fine. money was never the issue for me staying or leaving.

From Penalty Kill


Yes, I'm pretty committed...and sometimes I think that I ought to *be* committed.

But seriously, there's not a shred of doubt in my mind that I would never do this to my H and my M again, and that certainty existed long before my H knew. Infidelity is just not very tempting once you've tasted the guilt of knowing how low you can sink.

Very interesting thread.

{{Dorry}},

You're so SMART!!

As a BS, I would have no problem signing a post-nup, for INFIDELITY ON EITHER SIDE only, and let's leave needs-meeting out of it. There are other ways to address that, like an infidelity-free divorce. He always has that option, just don't have an affair to get out.

If I ever have an affair, he can have everything.

WAT, as you might surmise, I would not be in favor of a "post-nuptual" agreement.

I would support a "pre-nuptual" agreement, especially in the case of a remarriage where assests that "should" go to children of the 1st marriage are "at risk." That's simply because once a couple has children, it's no longer "only about themselves." I would tend to think of a pre-nup in much the same light as "organ donation" or "advance directives" so that the will of the person is carried out instead of "someone else" making decisions for them when they no longer can. In the event of a remarriage, families quite often already exist and THEIR "rights" to assests can be, and will be, transfered to any new spouse sans any direction from the father or mother of THOSE children.

Other than that, obedience to a piece of paper or obedience to the LORD is the "bottom line" issue for me.

In today's court system a person can get a divorce for ANY reason, and to limit a "nuptual agreement, pre or post" to ONLY adultery would only "help" someone whose infidel spouse was "terminally stupid" and "forgot" that such a paper existed.

Worse, it hangs as a "sword of Damocles" of distrust saying, in effect, "see, I NEVER need to trust you again because if you don't stay faithful to me regardless of what I do or don't do, I boot you to the street as a pauper. That you helped get me financially where I am today is irrelevant and your contribution to our joint financial success or position is, and was, meaningless, frivolous, and NOT NEEDED.

Building a "house" on purely secular grounds is, to me, dumb. Why even get married in the first place and why bother trying to recover a marriage suffering from infidelity in the first place. NO marriage contract, no splitting of assests.
NO recovery, simply right to divorce for CAUSE and keep your assests or split them for "services rendered in getting us JOINTLY to where we are."
Have you ever seen the statistics, WAT, of what a simple "Stay At Home Mom" is worth in MONEY if you were to hire someone to perform all the things that a SAHM Mom (or spouse) does?

How to emulate a COVENANTAL marriage? Nuptual Agreements?

Now I wonder what would happen to that post-nuptual agreement if the non-cheating spouse decided to beat the unfaithful spouse? Spousal abuse would NOT trigger the post-nup agreement. Neither would unavailability or inability to perform sex. The list goes on and on.

I understand the anger that goes with having to "pay" for a spouse's infidelity and betrayal. I would be very angry about it (righteous anger) too, but that would not lend itself to an excuse to commit a sin myself, and a post-nuptual agreement as you have described WOULD be merely a tool to "keep control" even if I later beat my wife and then she sought solace in the arms of another man instead of "meekly taking" the beatings. What about alcohol or drug abuse?

I see the post-nup idea as perhaps "well-intentioned," but seriously flawed in scope and implementation, to say nothing of WHO or WHAT spouses are submitting their lives to. NOT having anyone else as LORD, I understand your attempt to "deal with a potential problem" strictly from a secular standpoint.

Thanks, Cymanca... it means a lot coming from you.

My marriage is the most important thing in my life. I'm sorry it was selfish actions on my part that lead me to feel this way.

Wisdom says you learn from your mistakes, but I wish I could have come to this conclusion without devistating my H, friends, family and my soul.

Regardless, I feel blessed to be where I am now. I feel blessed for MB.

Catching up here -

Someone asked about "proving" the infidelity. I think it would be no different that "proving" adultery in a divorce setting without a post-nup: evidence that shows predisposition and opportunity. Yep, this would require dirty, nasty, ugly business - just like it does anyway.

Hey, I didn't claim this was a perfect idea!

Somebody else brought up other "crimes" including FH's reference to spousal abuse. Good points. I'd propose these are not part of a post-infidelity post-nup but obviously not off the table for "normal" responses, including divorce and whatever the normal process would result in. In other words, a post-nup in the context I'm discussing is specifically aimed at infidelity - because it has already occurred once. I can imagine if spousal abuse was the initiating crime, that similarly a post-nup aimed a spousal abuse could be created - without mentioning infidelity. So, to answer the question, "where does it stop?", I'll say that the scope of the post-nup is limited to the divorceable "crime" that has already occurred. The basis is the history that has been established.

FH -

I'll answer by saying that I see this whole post-nup concept as solely addressing the "business" or "civil" or "secular" aspects of the broken marriage contract. Obviously, the spiritual vows don't do the job. If breaking the spiritual vows sends you to he11 in a handbasket on judgement day, so be it. But in the meantime, I'm paying for my XW's crime. Plain and simple.

But that's the problem! I didn't get to keep my assets! I was REQUIRED by the State, absent consent from my spouse otherwise, to split them 50/50 - after I put her through graduate school and after she broke the "contract" to forsake others. For "services rendered", she ought to owe me a percentage of her future salary for helping her get that higher paying job right before she started her adultery!

Yes I have. What's your point and how does it relate to the post nup concept? Why should a SAHM be any different? In fact, I'll say that a WS SAHM already has more protection than she ought to. Hubby is making the $$ and she ends up with a huge alimony AND probably gets the kids to boot. Where's the justice in that?

Remember - this is all about financial justice and providing disincentive for repeat infidelity, nothing else. The emotional costs are still there.

WAT

Well maybe they are unromantic, but certainly not as unromantic as having your spouse being intimate with OP. I didn't get a pre-nup because I thought my FWH was the most wonderful man on earth and couldn't imagine him ever trying to run off with any of my assets if we ever split. I still think my FWH is wonderful, but I also know that he is capable of out of character behavior such as having an affair.

I don't think that FWH will cheat again, but I want him to think long and hard about all of the repercussions that will befall him if he does. At the very least these would include me divorcing him and with a post nup, the added loss of any of the financial security he gets from me.

If he meets someone so wonderful that he believes that she is worth giving up his life as he knows it, then OW is welcome to have the alien creature.

And for the very same reason, I as a BS would not think twice about signing such an agreement, give me the pen now. I don't have any intention of having an affair ever, but then honestly, neither did my FWH at the time we married. Things change, people change, as Dr. Harley says, we are all wired for an affair. So what a post nup would do for me is make me think things thru before taking the step that would not only destroy my recovered marriage, but ruin me financially.

I guess what I am saying is that I would consider the post nup's purpose as more of a sanity check/reality check for potential WS where they would delay taking that fatal step long enough to regain some perspective and perhaps avoid the FOG altogether.


Who

Patriot,

I have made it a policy for a while now not to post to you, but I'd like to break my rule in this instance. Sometimes it is helpful for me to interact with you in this manner, in order to get feedback from the group and sometimes I think maybe it provides learning for others, too.

If it isn't helpful for you, please let me know and I will back away completely.



No, you didn't. My intuition told me that there was an underlying issue and I didn't know what it was. I appreciate your assertions. I love to read your posts and I like to know what's on your mind.

I called you after your initial post because I did have a "feeling" about it. I wanted to clarify, rather than make assumptions.

I got frustrated when you didn't have time to talk to me. I'm sorry for that.



This is not true. The damage is done. Your presence through it is a comfort to me.



I am sorry this happened to you. This makes sense to me and I thank you for explaining it so well, for all to read - including myself. This helps me understand you and now I completely understand where your initial post is coming from and understand that it doesn't have anything to do with me.

I understand this fear, based on your past experiences. It's a valid fear and what happened to you in your first marriage was unfair and I understand that it was/is a painful hot button for you.

Thanks again for sharing that.

To the topic at hand, I would have no problem signing.

Yes, and it SHOULD make you angry that our court system allows this sort of "rape" to occur. I know it makes me mad.




I agree. She should owe you alimony, recovery of educational expenses, etc.. Again, it is our liberal court system that is set up to benefit either the one who committed the "crime" or the "poor little woman" regardless of any fairness or justice, NEVER the victim.




WAT, I understand your "objective." My point is that you talking about at least two different "kinds" of marriages.

One is Christian, where both spouses are believers and that have Jesus as Lord of their lives.

The second is non-Christian and does NOT have anyone other than "self" on the personal "throne" of their lives.

In EITHER case, if you want to protect assests or define who gets what, the do a PRE-nuptual agreement.

If you are "Case One," then submission to the Lord ends the problem.

If it's "Case Two, or "unevenly yoked," be my guest because there is no "higher authority" than self-interest in the lives of the couple or the one who does NOT believe in Christ.

"this is all about ... providing disincentive for repeat infidelity, nothing else." Turning to this part of your statement, the "disincentive" for Christians is Christ and obedience to His commands. But if it makes you feel better to have such an agreement that presupposes an Affair could, or would be likely to, occur in the future, then have one. There is no need for "trust" when the legal system stands ready to enforce an agreement. Sort of like, "you WILL maintain a high paying job so I don't have to worry about finances OR you OWE me half of everything so I can 'make it on my own." WHERE does it end. A "camel's nose" in the tent will soon have the whole camel in bed with you as you each "invite" various "parts" of the camel inside. Love and trust take a permanent backseat.

IF it's all about preserving assets, then get a divorce, live together, and keep separate bank accounts and names on titles of things like the house.

I think a post nup is a great idea. I have been considering one for a while now. My situation is different though. I could get full custody of my children and pay no alimony as it stands now. However the longer I try to work it out with my wife the less custody I might get and she may receive alimony. I would like to ask for a post nup to make sure that me trying to work it out doesn't cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars. You have given up a lot in order to try to work it out with the A they should commit to giving up something if they stray again.

WAT
----------------------
Never attempt to silence criticism from a fool.

WAT, I fail to see what got under you saddle so much. The bottom line as I told you is have a Post-nup agreement if that is what YOU think you need.

Man, I tire of your sort of attack for no reason when you perceive something differing from your opinion.

Rest in peace, I'm outta here and never should have tried anyway.

Based on the overall affirmative responses to the post nup concept, should standard fare advice on this forum to newbie WSs or FWSs include offering a post nup to the BS - as routine as recommending sending a NC letter?

I say this in recognition of my observation that wanna be FWSs that come here typically have resistent BSs - opposite of the "normal" roles. Offering a post nup can only help, it seems to me.

WAT

FH,

I don't think that any of we Christians here would disagree with that, but there are also many Christians here who count themselves among the WS side of the fence. I sure think that should have also been enough disincentive in the case of the first instance of infidelity but obviously for some it is not.

I again offer up my perspective from earlier in this thread....that I would consider the post nup's purpose as more of a sanity check/reality check for potential WS where they would delay taking that fatal step long enough to regain some perspective and perhaps avoid the FOG altogether.

I don't want anyone here thinking that what I am saying is that I would find it optimal that my FWH was lusting after OW but restraining himself only because he knew that I would leave him penniless. I'd like to think that we could spend the rest of our lives together without him ever being attracted to another woman or being tempted to cheat, but being a BS has relieved me of the ability to have that kind of naive optimism. He didn't stop to think of any possible repercussions before beginning his first affair and I don't want there to be any question in his mind of what the ultimate outcome will be if he ever repeats his mistake.

He has already told me that he would probably kill both me and OM if I were to have an affair. I'd say that is far more drastic than expecting him to leave with the meager material contributions he has made during the course of our relationship.

Who

Dern, I missed this part -
Hard to believe you said that - you're not serious, are you? - knowing how poor a job the "obedience" does? How many Pastor OM's have we heard about??? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

IT CLEARLY DOESN'T WORK!!

Try again.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
WAT

WAT, I no longer intend to contribute an opinion, much less give the reasoning behind the opinion.

Have it your way, it IS the "human" thing to do. Trusting God NO MATTER WHAT is not important anyway, right?

Suit yourself, FH. But what you said makes no sense.

With all the faithful on this forum who have been WSs, isn't it clear that "obedience" didn't work?

Sure, you'll say that, "well, then they weren't being obedient!"

Duh!

No matter how high an authority for one's morals is claimed, they can so easily be discarded, as we so often see. No better than my personal, "variable" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> authority.

WAT

At the risk of having my head hit by a bolt of lightening, I'll weigh in (and probably sound like a smarta$$)...

I wasn't obedient. I didn't listen to God. And I *wouldn't* have listened unless God Himself came down from the clouds in a chariot of fire and told me to knock it off.

And then I still might not have listened. At this point, I just don't know.

Is that what you're wondering, WAT?

WAT, for one who is self-proclaimed "sufficient" in his own self, I will only let the Word of God speak on its own, there is no need for me to try to "reason" with you so you would might understand things that are "of God," not "of Man." You mock that which you do not understand.


"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than a man's strength." (1Cor 1:18-25 NIV)


WAT, WHO Jesus Christ is and one's relationship with Him is the basic, most fundamental, question and issue. ALL of the rest flows FROM that relationship, or LACK of PERSONAL relationship with our Lord and Savior.

"Obedience" that you mock is a result of LOVE, not fear or will or choice "against what one 'really' wants to do." It "DOES" out of love for what HE did for us. EVEN those who took their eyes off Him and fell into adultery "get back" that obedience for the present and the future by keeping their eyes on Jesus, not on their "circumstances."


"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit.
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?"
But we have the mind of Christ." (1Cor 2:13-16 NIV)


"Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, "The Lord know that the thoughts of the wise are futile." So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas [that is, Peter] or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God." (1Cor 3:18-23 NIV)


"If you love me, you will obey what I command." (John 14:15 NIV)


WAT, what I have been talking about is grounded and founded in LOVE for Christ, not your "rights" or my "rights," not the "rights" of a Former Wayward Spouse or a Former Betrayed Spouse. I am talking about LOVE.

Call it foolishness if you will. But it is CENTERED in each spouse's relationship with Christ and in their keeping HIM, not either one of them, on the "sovereign throne" of their lives or marriage.

YOU argue that "protection" is the MOST important. I disagree. I "argue" that the couple's RELATIONSHIP with Christ is the MOST important. Just as Peter found out, it is WHEN we take our eyes off of Christ and begin to worry about the "realities" of this world that we begin to "sink."
It IS the husband's responsibility, and command of God, to BE the spiritual leader in his home, NO MATTER WHAT.

And I understand your difficulty in understanding that simple truth.

NBII -
No, not wondering, just remarking on FH's flawed logic about relying on "obedience" to prevent infidelity. Your remarks are a suitable example, IMHO.

Once again, FH - if you want to continue this, go back and read the entirety of this thread. This is ALL about the civil or business side of marriage and divorce, the secular aspects that, like it or not, are determined by laws of state - not the spiritual aspects. Your on-topic contributions are welcome just like everyone else's, but please take different topics and your preaching to another thread.

WAT

I understand your perspective, WAT. What you don't understand, or choose to reject, is that God instituted and ordained Marriage, not civil authorities. Man has managed to "corrupt" what God intended many times and there is no reason to expect any less from anyone who does NOT have Jesus Christ as their "bridegroom" in the "marriage of believers and God."

It's little different in many respects to society's attempts to "de-Christ-ize" Christmas and the REASON Christmas exists. God came before marriage. God instituted marriage. Man chooses to corrupt what God put in place and without Christ in their lives, God's intention for marriage WILL seem as "foolishness" to many. It, as Christmas, is NOT about secular gain, sales, or protection of profits.

You just don't get it, WAT, because you are blinded to, and seemingly violently opposed to, "things of God."

I am NOT, nor have I ever advocated, "reliance on obedience" to "prevent" infidelity anymore that you should "rely" on obedience to a post-nuptual agreement to prevent future infidelity. Obedience COMES FROM a reliance on God, not self. It comes from a LOVE FOR God, not self or spouse. "If you love me you will obey my commands." It is NOT "obey my command and THEN you will love me."

NO ONE can "serve two masters." A couple CANNOT both be keeping their eyes firmly upon Christ and following Him in humble submissiveness to His commands and NOT their own feelings, wants, or desires AND also simultaneously CHOOSING to sin against His command prohibiting Adultery.

To put into place a "nuptual agreement" that is based upon adultery (assumed to be in the future) is irrelevant to a couple who IS committed to Christ. It also is a slap in the face to God who says to love Him regardless of circumstances that we might have to face in life, and that includes monetary loss.

Very true, but God isn't the one to divide up marital assets when WS move on with OP. I guess my point here is that if everyone was obedient of God's word and the 10 commandments, there wouldn't be a need for this site, or marriage counselors, or police officers etc. Being a Christian doesn't make one free of sin, nor does it make most of us invulnerable to temptation. I don't see any harm in giving a potential WS one more disincentive to infidelity. It is sort of like having a lock on your front door. Thou shalt not steal aside, I still lock my doors.

Who

The division of property is one thing.
But when it comes to custody, what's up with assumption that the faithful spouse is automatically the better parent than the spouse who cheats? Just curious.

SC, I'll say that by definition, the cheater is very, very likely not the better parent.

But I don't know what you do in the case where the WS is a relatively better parent because, say, the BS was abusive and dealing drugs and the children were in real danger. Those cases exist. Of course the better sitch is to get out of those marriages BEFORE becoming a cheater.

JMHO

WAT

WAT,


By definition? What definition? I will grant you that people who cheat generally have either serious character flaws or psychological problems -- or both -- that need to be addressed. But who says those issues and/or problems are worse -- or more to the point, more detrimental to children -- than the issues the faithful spounse needs to deal with?

And I don't think it has to be as dramatic as a drug-dealing, abusive parent either.

Using my own situation as an example: I cheated. Until I work through my emotional problems, I'm probably vulnerable to do it again. And from some of the timelines I've seen for my particular issues, it could take me at least a couple of years to get my head out of my azz. But I have always -- even during my affair -- been a good and responsible parent.

On the other hand, my H used to be emotinally abusive to our older daughter. He's better now (ever since I first suggested I might want to split-up), and has actually become a really good dad. But he still slips back into his short-tempered habits from time to time. He also had (has?) a porn addiction. And in the event of a split, I could see how he'd jump right back into that. And as far as moral character goes -- well, let's just say that our last arguement was over the fact that he wanted me to lie about our financial situation to get a better deal with our new childcare provider, and I refused to do it.

As far as parenting goes, we both agree that I have better instincts and insights. He says it "doesn't come naturally" for him. And he ususally looks to me for guidance on how to deal with most tough situations. But he loves his girls with all his heart. (As do I).

So who would the kids be better off with?

They would not be in any "real danger" with their father (unless they were exposed to the porn, and I'm sure he would go to great lengths to make sure that did NOT happen). But if we're both being really honest about it, we both know the girls would be better off with me.

I don't know. Maybe some of you think they'd be better off with their dad, regardless. Maybe my situation is atypical. I just get the feeling that it's taken for granted around here that a WS or FWS is "by definition" a bad parent... and I'm here to say... that ain't always so.

--SC

Just want to add my two cents here.

Parents are many things. They wear many hats. One hat might be BS, one might be WS, but the foremost title on the hat is parent. Having said that...

Does the fact that my wife had multiple As make her a bad mom? She didn't expose the kids to the As so they're not seeing that example.

The fact of the matter is, custody is more determined by other lifestyle behaviors. Does the parent smoke in the home? Does the parent take the kids to church? Can the parent provide support to the kids?

Now, if my WW was bring all these men into our house, that would be another story completely. There are specifics of each sitch that have to be looked at and I don't think that saying a BS or a WS is a better parent is a generalization that ought to be made.

Exactly! which is why I question whether custody should be included in a standard post-nup.

I guess I don't disagree that child custody should maybe be handled separately from a pre- or post nup. Children are not "assets" or property. - or custody determinations should be specifically addressed in nups as being decided by whatever arbitrator or mediator or whoever can objectively evaluate what's best for the children.

How's that?

By "by definition" I meant prima facie evidence. A parent who conducts adultery is not being a "good parent." Setting aside the behavior of the BS for a moment, aren't those two acts mutually exclusive?

WAT

Who's to say that the capability of a WS or BS to parent won't change over the course of time? Assuming that the prenup is agreed to by both parties, hypothetical sitch...the FWS becomes an alcoholic, FBS has coping issues and has an affair. Now the current BS/alcoholic gets the kids?

Custody agreements can't be made in advance, IMO. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

From Penalty Kill


WAT, I agree with many things you say, but in my situation your assumption would be completely incorrect. My H would be the first to admit that I was an excellent parent before, during and after my A. He was a good parent and an excellent provider, but had many years where he placed his own extracurricular interests (not illegal) before the needs of his family. He was actually the one spending the most time, money and effort pursuing his activities while I was left at home to care for the children.

I think that speaking in generalities is seldom a good idea, and that is why I make reference to *my* situation only. The mileage of others may vary.

Not bad. Clean up that first sentence to be less wishy-washy, and I'd say it's downright open minded and fair of you Mr. T. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Mmmmm. I dunno. Even during my affair, fog, & withdrawl... I still read to my kids, huged and kissed them, cooked for them, taught them how to share, nursed their boo-boos and colds, did their laundry, refereed their squabbles, you get the picture. So, no, I guess I really don't think it's AUTOMATICALLY mutually exclusive.

--SC

PK - I don't think I was making an unwarranted broad generality.

You would recognize, I bet, that risking dissolution of a family via infidelity is not good parenting, right?

And I just said that it's very, very likely that the WS is - by this recognition - not being the best of the two parents in relative terms.

It's pointless to debate this by bringing up examples where the WS is a better overall parent. Perhaps you were one. Good job. It's clear you're likely doing a good job now - by virtue of placing high value on preservation of the family.

To debate this would require placing positive parenting value on various tasks, and negative value on others. How many years of coaching a youth baseball team gets erased by one affair? How many examples of NOT going to a parent teacher conference equals the damage done by an affair? Pretty silly, huh?

I wish you well in your recovery. Have you two discussed a post-nup? Perhaps you said so earlier - I apologize if my oldstimers disease is kicking in.

WAT

Not sure if others have noticed, but LOADS of WSes are involved in car accidents while in their affairs...I was...I totalled my car, in fact, had to get stitches right between my eyebrows...By the grace of God my DD was not in the car with me at the time...My decision making during that time quite clearly demonstrated me to be the unfit parent...If we decide to enter into a post nuptial agreement we will include a custody clause...

Mrs. W

Gonna play devils advocate here.

Mrs. W. Did that car accident make you an unfit parent or an unfit driver?

Well Drex...my being an unfit driver is certainly arguable any day of the week-LOL <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />...

But seriously, prior to that time of my life I hadn't had any driving altercations since my teens...However, in that 3 mth. period I managed to get 3 traffic tickets...total a car...and then rear end another car in my brand new car(just a tap and no damage, but still)...I've had NO other incidents since the affair, so you tell me...

The list of irresponsible choices that I made back then, that most definitely affected my abilities as a parent, are quite honestly, too numerous to list...

I am of the opinion that the choice to have an affair does, in fact, necessarily cloud your abilities as a parent...there are a million reasons why I believe that...I don't wish to argue my opinion...Anyone that chooses to enter into a post nuptial agreement would certainly have the option not to include a custody clause...I'm just saying that Mr. W and I would...

Mrs. W

Okie, Mrs. W. I can appreciate where you're coming from. You still haven't convinced me though. Did you see my earlier post on this thread about one being a qualified parent changing over time? If so, what do you think in that situation?

Complete devils advocate, mind you. Not trying to flame anyone. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Wait...I didn't realize that was the goal at hand...Am I supposed to be convincing you about me or in general? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> LOL You'll just have to take my word for it about me...

I would say that under the circumstances that you suggested, the contract could be challenged, ultimately it would remain up to the judge based on the evidence presented...However, it is Mr. W that is the lawyer, and as a layman, I would not and could not even begin to argue contracts or statements of intent with anyone...

You aren't flaming me at all Drex...If you want my opinion as it pertains to your situation I'll offer it to you...I haven't read your story-but didn't you say that your (F?)WW had 19 affairs? Without knowing all the facts, I can make an educated guess that your wife has some issues that would certainly call into question her being the more fit parent...but I don't know you, so really I couldn't say...The great thing about a post nuptial agreement is that only you and your wife have to agree to the terms...ya know?

Mrs. W

Mrs. W. I'd love your opinion. Yes, I stated that she had 19 As. I also stated that I had one a long long time ago. I don't want to thread jack, though so after you've read up on me, if you would be willing to offer your opinion in another thread, that would be awesome. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I still use WW. I am as yet unconvinced of remorse and committment on her part. But... she has said nothing of D or leaving in roughly 2 weeks.