Quantcast

Would You Agree to a Relationship Contract?

Living 2012/05/29 19:45:32
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Last week, we gave you the scoop on Mark Zuckerberg's new bride, Priscilla Chan. But we neglected to mention that she supposedly agreed to a "relationship contract."

mark zuckerberg priscilla chan

According to the book "The Facebook Effect," Zuckerberg, 28, agreed to spend at least 100 minutes of private time with Chan, 27, each week, as well as take her on at least one date. They also agreed to vacation for two weeks yearly overseas.

So, is making such a "deal" a good idea? A blogger for dating site howaboutwe.com thinks so, writing: "Dating an eccentric billionaire seems like it’s probably no cake-walk, but Priscilla has obviously done a good job of making sure their relationship remains a priority for the Facebook founder. 100 minutes is less than two hours, but even that can seem like a godsend when you’re dating someone who is just really, really busy."

It's unclear whether the couple agreed to this deal verbally or whether they actually signed papers. But the howaboutwe writer thinks we could all take a page out of the Facebook founder's book:

"Personally, I’m pretty pro agreements or pacts within a relationship. It could be about anything, from the frequency of sex, to the divying up of household chores, to where you spend holidays together as a couple. It may seem unromantic to mandate rules, but having a clear set of expectations for both partners makes it easy to ensure that needs are being met." Do you agree?


Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Katelin Rose Harris 2012/05/30 23:14:10
    No
    Katelin Rose Harris
    relationships change-feelings change
  • Greatkibble 2012/05/30 22:46:20
    No
    Greatkibble
    But it could be interesting - I can force you to spend time with me.
  • cuzzbuzzla 2012/05/30 22:36:02
    No
    cuzzbuzzla
    +1
    If I didn't have trust I would realize I didn't have anything.
  • T 2012/05/30 22:21:58
    Yes
    T
    +5
    I gave wedding vows. That sounds, to me, like a relationship contract. I agreed to love her for richer, for poorer, in sickness, and in health. Their contract is just a bit more itemized and the items sound perfectly reasonable to me considering the person Priscilla Chan is marrying. There is nothing outrageous there.
  • TheR 2012/05/30 22:15:37
  • JMCC 2012/05/30 21:56:00
    Yes
    JMCC
    +1
    What is a marriage contract if not a verbal contract of the terms of a relationship?
  • Empathic 2012/05/30 21:21:36
    Yes
    Empathic
    It's a very good idea to be clear about your expectations and preferences. Marriage vows tend to be vague, nonspecific and actually difficult to interpret into day-to-day behaviour. The 'marriage contract' in western countries is not worthy of the name given no-fault, easy divorce with absolutely no penalties for breaching whatever promises were made. Entering into that 'contract' can hardly be seen as commitment, but entering into a personalized contract that includes penalties for breaching or abandonment is real commitment. Including minimum standards regarding contact time and relationship behaviour is a very good idea if anything less were likely to lead either party to see the marriage as no longer worthwhile.

    It's scandalous that the default laws in most western countries are so bad that most people need to set up their own contract if after any separation they wish to achieve a property division they (and most people) would see as fair. The existing default laws were demanded by feminists and their continuation now is convenient for what feminism has become, i.e. 'femaleism', special privilege for women through exploitation of men. Overwhelmingly, the default laws are used by unfaithful women to extract assets they have no moral right to, e.g. that their male p...
    It's a very good idea to be clear about your expectations and preferences. Marriage vows tend to be vague, nonspecific and actually difficult to interpret into day-to-day behaviour. The 'marriage contract' in western countries is not worthy of the name given no-fault, easy divorce with absolutely no penalties for breaching whatever promises were made. Entering into that 'contract' can hardly be seen as commitment, but entering into a personalized contract that includes penalties for breaching or abandonment is real commitment. Including minimum standards regarding contact time and relationship behaviour is a very good idea if anything less were likely to lead either party to see the marriage as no longer worthwhile.

    It's scandalous that the default laws in most western countries are so bad that most people need to set up their own contract if after any separation they wish to achieve a property division they (and most people) would see as fair. The existing default laws were demanded by feminists and their continuation now is convenient for what feminism has become, i.e. 'femaleism', special privilege for women through exploitation of men. Overwhelmingly, the default laws are used by unfaithful women to extract assets they have no moral right to, e.g. that their male partners earned long before meeting them. The laws also often require men to continue to pay (over and above so-called 'child support' that will usually be far more than children actually cost) for women's upkeep even after those women have abandoned them. Conversely, when a woman partners with a male who is poorer than she is she will almost always insist on a pre-nup to protect her own wealth, and it is very rare that a woman is ordered to pay spousal support to a man.
    (more)
  • VICTORIA Empathic 2012/05/31 02:54:48
    VICTORIA
    You had an excellent point about expectations, but are woefully misinformed regarding laws in 'western countries'. In America e.g. states regulate the conditions of marital assets- and assets accrued by either party are taken into consideration- assets earned and joined throughout the marriage are considered joint- or negotiable- and it is still overwhelmingly men who are the initiators of pre-nups- not the women. Actually, women are ordered to pay spousal support at a much greater rate than men- alimony is almost non-existent now in most states- and men continue to make $1.00 to every .71 cents a woman makes-
  • Empathic VICTORIA 2012/06/07 23:33:08
    Empathic
    I would like to see the source as evidence for your claim about who are most often the initiators of pre-nups. You may well be correct because women tend to choose as mates men older and wealthier than they are, so men will much more often have greater assets to protect. However, my point still stands: when women have more wealth they are almost certain to insist upon a pre-nup to protect it, i.e. a greater proportion of women with greater wealth insist upon protective contracts than men do.

    I would like to see the evidence for your claim that women are ordered to pay spousal support at a much greater rate than men. I don't believe your claim for a moment and it sounds like typical feminist misinformation.

    I don't know the default law concerning relationship property in all jurisdictions and no doubt there will be considerable variation. However, we often read about celebrities' separating wives receiving huge payouts based on their husbands' previously earned assets, yet we seldom come across cases where men receive similar payouts from their wives. In my country, relationship property is defined as any property used in any way as part of the relationship, and I understand laws are similar in many other western jurisdictions. A friend of mine worked various jobs as a teen...

    I would like to see the source as evidence for your claim about who are most often the initiators of pre-nups. You may well be correct because women tend to choose as mates men older and wealthier than they are, so men will much more often have greater assets to protect. However, my point still stands: when women have more wealth they are almost certain to insist upon a pre-nup to protect it, i.e. a greater proportion of women with greater wealth insist upon protective contracts than men do.

    I would like to see the evidence for your claim that women are ordered to pay spousal support at a much greater rate than men. I don't believe your claim for a moment and it sounds like typical feminist misinformation.

    I don't know the default law concerning relationship property in all jurisdictions and no doubt there will be considerable variation. However, we often read about celebrities' separating wives receiving huge payouts based on their husbands' previously earned assets, yet we seldom come across cases where men receive similar payouts from their wives. In my country, relationship property is defined as any property used in any way as part of the relationship, and I understand laws are similar in many other western jurisdictions. A friend of mine worked various jobs as a teenager after school and weekends to restore an old wreck of a sports car, including thousands of hours of direct work on the car. He then married when in his 20's and used the sports car occasionally to get to work when the family car was being repaired. His wife left him after about 5 years and was entitled to claim half the value of the sports car, which after his restoration efforts became quite valuable. He could not afford to buy half the restored value of the car from her (and why the hell should he have to? Talk about a racket!) and had to sell his car to pay her out. This kind of nonsense remains typical in respect of already-owned houses and businesses, and the need for us to pay lawyers to protect ourselves in advance from the unfairness of such default laws is a ridiculous situation. Yes, it sometimes happens in the opposite gender direction but how often do we come across this? Rarely.

    Comparisons between 'average earnings' of men and women are a favourite feminist ploy. Firstly, the actual difference as measured varies greatly depending on how 'earnings' are defined, and we see a large range of quoted figures. Secondly, the figures never take into account the numerous sources of income that women tend to get more of. If relationship property payouts, sole-parent welfare, dishonestly-called 'child support' and other female income sources are included, the difference may well change to the other direction. The figures never take into account the fact that in most jurisdictions the woman has equal legal ownership of what the other partner earns. A mother at home may not be earning an independent salary at a job somewhere but clearly she lives on her partner's income (often consuming half or more of that income) and this should also be calculated into female earnings. Thirdly, feminists like to imply that women's lower 'average earnings' are due to sexism. In fact, most western jurisdictions have laws ensuring equal pay for equal work, and the difference between women's and men's employment earnings remain due to such factors as lifestyle choices, ambition regarding promotion, choice of jobs and women's luxury of choice to spend more time with their own children while the father has some boss breathing down his neck and misses out on his child's first words and first steps. Fourthly, the 'average earnings' comparison takes no account of the types of jobs that women and men do. Year after year western men contribute close to 100% of workplace deaths and serious injuries because of the dangerous, dirty, uncomfortable, body-wrecking jobs they do to provide the infrastructure of modern society. If women want equality in the workplace then as a first step let's see them do the type of work that will kill, disable and remove years of life from them at an equal rate to men. Otherwise, their demand for equal average earnings amounts to little more than femaleist self-entitlement through exploiting men.
    (more)
  • VICTORIA Empathic 2012/06/08 03:28:54
    VICTORIA
    You have some personal issues, Dude, that are above my pay grade.
    Wow, you really hate women.
  • Empathic VICTORIA 2012/06/13 09:40:20
    Empathic
    I don't hate women at all and I challenge you to point to anything I wrote that would suggest that. Rather than debate, acknowledge or disagree with honestly any of my points you chose to dismiss me with ad hominem attack. Not surprising, and described quite well here: http://exposingfeminism.wordp...
  • VICTORIA Empathic 2012/06/13 15:06:02
    VICTORIA
    Like I said, you just don't know the reality here in America. You're wrong, and you have serious issues with women. Sounds to me like a man who resents paying child support. Not really anything else to say to each other, is there?
  • Empathic VICTORIA 2012/06/15 06:34:25
    Empathic
    Well you could try providing or linking to some evidence for your claims as I challenged you to do. Also, you could try pointing to anything in my posts here showing hatred towards women or 'serious issues' with women as I also challenged you to do. Please do so instead of carrying on resorting to derogatory personal comments based on nothing but conjecture. Is that how you generally respond to anyone who doesn't agree with you? You may well imagine that your approach reduces someone debating with you but instead it parades low standards of communication.
  • VICTORIA Empathic 2012/06/16 04:24:10
    VICTORIA
    I could, but your obvious hostility inclines me to value my own time- and not waste it.
    Yup, you accuse me of "low standards" of communication.
    Big deal, like I care what you think about me.
  • chuck 2012/05/30 21:04:14
    No
    chuck
    +1
    Hell no if i have to do that I'm gone
  • Peacock 2012/05/30 21:01:25
    No
    Peacock
    +2
    No..not in a relationship. Marriage is a contract, engagement is a promise to marry...a relationship should be the time you get to know who you are as a couple..no rules, just real. How can you sign to have sex a set number of times? Sounds too much like work.
  • katchan 2012/05/30 20:43:44
    No
    katchan
    +2
    If you need to contract any private time together, it's obviously not important enough for you to want to do, and you shouldn't be subjecting yourself or another person to that kind of dynamic.
  • Sinister Ken Doll™ 2012/05/30 20:30:04
    Yes
    Sinister Ken Doll™
    pre nup!!!!
  • The Bee Guy 2012/05/30 20:18:28
    Yes
    The Bee Guy
    I absolutely DID, It was called a wedding, and a marriage License. My wife and I were married thirty years ago this year, and took that contract seriously, as she could attest, I fought to bring her back to my care from the nursing home, after a minor stroke revealed her brain injury received as a child, to the doctors. She is now agin home again and in my care. When She married me, she followed the teaching of Ephesians % in the Bible and submitted herself to me, As in she submitted her care into my keeping, and accepted, that decisions that were hard, where often better made by me, after we discussed them, then by her listening to a sales person, selling either product, or idea, for our use, either to our benefit, but more often to our injury.
  • VintageLys 2012/05/30 20:17:02
    No
    VintageLys
    if he wants to make time ,he will make time on his own..
  • A 2012/05/30 20:11:28 (edited)
    Yes
    A
    In a situation like theirs it actually sounds like a good idea.
  • KarenInKenoshaWisconsin 2012/05/30 20:08:50
    No
    KarenInKenoshaWisconsin
    The emotional-psychological temptation with such contracts is aim for doing the minimum? Aim higher?
  • Andy 2012/05/30 19:57:46
    Yes
    Andy
    I think the Majority of the Female Species would Disagree or Find this to be Sexist or discriminatory but thats just Typical & he couldve found a Hotter girl than that FFS I say Make sure she signs a Prenup too
  • Sally Andy 2012/05/30 22:21:53
    Sally
    Females are not a separate species...
  • Andy Sally 2014/03/29 00:46:05
    Andy
    Maybe not in Ireland but in Australia thats a different kettle of fish.....
  • Sam DePecan 2012/05/30 19:44:02
    Yes
    Sam DePecan
    If I looked like that freak, I'd have to.
  • Boss 2012/05/30 19:39:25
    No
    Boss
    sounds too mechanical to me...typical facebook...
  • mneiai 2012/05/30 19:33:30
    Yes
    mneiai
    If it was for someone like Zuckerberg, than I definitely would. It would be easy for him not to do any of that, to get distracted, or busy, or whatever. This way you at least know you're really dating the guy, not just there to be random arm candy and a source for sex he doesn't have to pay.
  • theprothinker 2012/05/30 19:22:46
    Yes
    theprothinker
    Yes, but that's part of what marriage is. Check out the traditional marriage vows - if both husband and wife did what they promised, all these details would be covered.
  • Sterling 2012/05/30 19:21:14
    Yes
    Sterling
    Yeah:

    "To have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part."
  • faustbc 2012/05/30 19:18:46
    No
    faustbc
    I would NOT agree to one, since I find it stupid. I mean, I'd obviously spend time with my girl weekly if not daily. But if others want to do it, it's their life not mine haha I find it kinda weird, though I guess if you have a really crazy life it can be good to have as a sort of "reminder" XD
  • Andy faustbc 2012/05/30 19:59:42
    Andy
    +1
    YOU MUST BE OF THE FEMALE SPECIES.....
  • faustbc Andy 2012/06/02 11:46:43
    faustbc
    +1
    no I'm a dude ._. And I was talking to the "agreement of how many minutes they both should spend together". That's what I found kinda weird. I see others talking about premarital agreements about how would they split stuff in case of divorce etc... that I'm perfectly fine with, it specially in his case, since he's got quite the money and I could see how some bitch would want to take advantage. Idk if you were referring to that as well? I honestly thought the poll was asking about arrangement of hours/minutes, not premarital agreements.
  • Beltazar 2012/05/30 19:04:11
    Yes
    Beltazar
    Sure y not.. whether it is for marriage or just dating.. But w/ someone like him he definitely needs a premarital agreement that should be a given by all means.. esp, in today's world where relationships only stand to last from a few months to several years.. And, just because she "dated" or "married" her in my eyes doesn't mean she should get 1/2 should they break up.. Or just because she got a custom to a certain lifestyle.. So his assets should be protected...
    I have a client who is fairly well off.. He is divorced w/ 2 kids.. And eventually he started dating this new woman.. And, after like 8 months or so things were going really good and so forth.. Well, She brought up the M. word and how nice it would be blah, blah, blah.. and he flat out told her that there is a premarital agreement that would have to be signed and so forth.. She flipped out but then was kind of OK'ed w/ it until she read it and understood it.. And basically, anything and everything was covered and if there was a divorce with in like 10 years she would get a flat out payment of like $200K and that was it.. And if she tried to fight it then she would end up w/ nothing... She ended up packing her bags the next day and left while he was a work.. LMAO.. And come to find out later from one of her friends she never had intentions of staying w/ him for more then several years... So it is a good idea to get one, unfortunately..
  • Andy Beltazar 2012/05/30 20:04:59
    Andy
    I wish they had Pre nups in my end of the world of west australia as after my ex wife. I wont have a gf live with me again as after 6months there entitled 50% of Everything U own....
  • Beltazar Andy 2012/05/31 00:50:17
    Beltazar
    +1
    wow, that sounds brutal.. Depending on what state u live in here some of them have similar rules but the time is different like Texas is 2 years and Florida is like 7 years after living together.. I actually know a guy in Michigan who has been divorced twice, and now a days she just shacks up w/ him and when she starts talking marriage he goes ok, bye bye.. lol we are done.. LMAO..
  • loribird29 2012/05/30 19:00:32
    Yes
    loribird29
    +1
    i can see the benefits of it, especially if one party has a significant amount of money before the marriage begins. and in this litigious society, you gotta cover your ass.
  • Tom Camfield 2012/05/30 18:36:23
    No
    Tom Camfield
    Sounds totally stupid to me.
  • Peace Out 2012/05/30 18:32:15
    No
    Peace Out
    All the things in the contract are nice. But shouldn't people want to spend time together anyway? You don't know what the future will bring so don't make a promise you may not be able to keep
  • [Ev@n] 2012/05/30 18:17:01
    No
    [Ev@n]
    It would feel more like a chore or a job in my opinion. But hey, if it works for you, then go for it.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/04/24 02:33:55

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals