Pre-Nups, Nups, and Post-Nups

Man arrested at airport
with baked chicken…
stuffed with cocaine.

Quite a long time ago I knew a young man who was married to an unusually attractive Asian woman. One afternoon, during a cocktail party, he began quite an affectionate public demonstration of his feelings, kissing her on the neck and such. Like many people who learned English only later in life, she was articulate enough but also, shall we say, somewhat creative in her use of our language. Slightly, but not terribly embarrassed, she announced loud enough for all to hear, “George (not his real name to protect his innocence), you’re “lewding.” George replied, “No, I’m pre-lewding.” This led to some idle banter and some speculation about the actual lewding that might occur later, and the inevitable post-lewding that would follow that.

I was led to recall this amusing event by the news that Tiger Woods is involved in what is described as re-negotiating his pre-nuptial agreement. This is not, however, about Tiger Woods and his wife, per se, but, rather about the phenomena of pre-nuptial agreements and such. As far as I am concerned, wealthy and famous athletes have sex. Some of them, perhaps most of them, have lots of it. Some of them boast about it, like Wilt Chamberlin or Magic Johnson, and some of them, like Tiger, keep it quiet. Given their fame, wealth, and life styles, this would seem almost inevitable. To think this doesn’t happen is naïve. But I confess that pre-nuptial agreements are mostly an unknown practice for me. Although I have been married more than once or twice, my experience has never involved pre-nuptial agreements. If it had it would probably have been not much more than a discussion of who might get the toaster, the typewriter (remember those), or the debts. This does not prevent me from being interested in the subject.

I have seen in various places the claim that Tiger’s wife had a pre-nuptial agreement that she would receive 10 million after a certain amount of time in the event of a divorce. I have also seen the claim that the pre-nuptial agreement was actually 300 million. I have no idea if any of this is true. For purposes here it doesn’t matter what the figures were or are. Now, because of Tiger’s indiscretions, and the embarrassment involved, it is being said the pre-nuptial agreement is being re-negotiated. At least one claim is, his wife is to receive a 5 million dollar amount immediately, and perhaps as much as 80 million to stay with him for x number of years. I have no idea if this is true. The idea behind this kind of settlement has apparently to do with the belief that if his marriage is “saved,” his “image” will also be saved, and his multi-million dollar sponsors will not withdraw their sponsorships (and he will continue to get his huge sums for representing their companies). This makes sense. His wife, apparently, is to continue to live with him (I gather) and appear with him in public, and (I guess) at least pretend that everything is okay with their marriage.

So Tiger and his wife have had their pre-nuptial agreement, and now they have had for a few years, their nuptials, and now there are negotiating what I think must be more properly termed their post-nuptial agreement. I find this fascinating and I would love to be privy to what this agreement consist of, other than that they will continue to present themselves as husband and wife. Does this agreement consist, for example, of continued “consortium?” Are they to sleep in the same bed, perhaps different bedrooms, maybe even different houses? Is she to attend all important social events, or can she pick and choose? Does she have to smile and appear happy at all times? What if she has a “bad hair day” and doesn’t want to attend some function? Now that she will have her own fortune, will she be responsible for buying her own gowns and such, or does she continue to get a clothing allowance? Of course there is the more important question of what happens to the children. We can probably safely assume they will continue joint custody. How about pets? I can see how these things can get really complicated. In this specific case, I don’t even want to know the details, I just find the questions of interest.

I had much the same curiosity when Jackie Kennedy married Aristotle Onassis. I assumed this was not a marriage based on love or passion, but, rather, a pragmatic financial agreement, whereby she would be his wife in name, appear with him in public, and so on. But did she have to agree to only so many weeks a year on the yacht? In addition to the fortune he gave her, did he also buy her clothes, give money to her children, and stuff like that? Did she have to agree in advance to eat unborn lamb (aaagh).

I find this practice to be of considerable interest, as you can see. I have known of a few cases of “marriages of convenience,” where two people agree to pose as husband and wife, sometimes when one of the partners was homosexual, and sometimes when there was a great difference in age and financial well-being. It might be unfair, but I thought that in at least a couple of these cases the woman was reduced to little more than the status of a “pet.” But unlike being an animal pet, these human pets can negotiate the level of their affection as well as their duties (at least up to a point). But what do I know? These arrangements are as foreign to me as life on another planet. Happily, I don’t have to take my toaster and go home to mother.

There is here, I think, an interesting question of prostitution. That is, if a person agrees to one of these financial arrangements, if it doesn’t involve actually selling your body for sex, does it still amount to prostitution? If your answer is yes, then it would appear to me that capitalism itself is little more than a huge brothel, in which people sell their labor, politicians sell their votes, and some people sell their sex. This idea requires much more thought than I have given it up until now.

LKBIQ:
Marriage: a book of which the first chapter is written in poetry and the remaining chapters in prose.
Beverly Nichols

TILT:
Folk musicians call a person who plays the harp, a harper, whereas classical musicians call them harpists.