Was Michael Jackson Responsible for His Own Death?

Was Michael Jackson Responsible for His Own Death? 

This week in English classes I teach in Thailand, I talked about the latest Michael Jackson news and gave them a printout of a news story talking about the Jackson homicide ruling. Then I asked my adult students if they thought Dr. Murray was to blame for Michael Jackson's death or if Michael Jackson had some responsibility. Here's what most of them said. 

Michael Jackson was a 50 year old adult man who should have been able to make rational, educated decisions when it came to taking drugs - even Propofol, a powerful anesthetic and one of the drugs that killed him. They almost all believed he had as much responsibility for his death as did Dr. Conrad Murray, and most of them believed Michael Jackson was more to blame.

From numerous news stories and sources, it looks like Michael Jackson had repeatedly asked for higher and higher doses of medicines and more and more drugs - anything that would make him sleep. As someone who was, for all intents and purposes, a drug addict, just like other drug addicts my students felt Michael Jackson should be responsible for the drugs he took. And, therefore, was ultimately to blame for his own death. In my students' minds, Michael Jackson killed himself.

Now, as an educator and someone who believes you cannot always blame a person for what happens to them, I'm not actually sure if I agree wholeheartedly with my students, although I do agree somewhat. After all, Michael Jackson did plead for drugs from several doctors, and he took the drugs that were given to him. In this case, how is getting drugs from Dr. Conrad Murray any different? Michael Jackson has to bear some responsibility for his own death as every functioning adult knows without a doubt, overdosing on drugs can kill you.

Cassandra James PHD

Women More Likely to Cheat Than Men

Women More Likely to Cheat Than Men

Marcos Viñas - Host / Commentator 

The world has been turned on its head, so don't ask me to trust you!

Thought women were more loyal to their partners? Not anymore! A new survey reveals that women are far more likely to cheat than men - so much for being love rats. One in five said they would go for another man if they fell for him, while only nine per cent men said they would remain faithful.

The survey conducted by Coffee and Company amongst 3,000 people revealed that women aged 35 to 40 were most likely to cheat. Many were childless and embark on flings in a bid to get pregnant.

But while 15 per cent of men would forgive a cheating wife or girlfriend, just 12 per cent of women would take back a partner who strayed.

Only 12 percent single men said they would try to seduce a married woman or one in a long-term relationship.

"Sometimes the need to experience motherhood overrides moral values about someone else's marriage vows,” the Sun quoted C and C boss Lorraine Adams as saying.

Women More Likely to Cheat on Vacation Too

Maybe it's the fact that vacation for us means "unlimited daiquiris served by a cabana boy" rather than, say, an ice-fishing trip, but one thing's certain: Women are more likely to cheat while on vacation than men.

According to a poll of people who use the website Illicit Encounters (the U.K. version of Ashley Madison), one-third of spouses who are already cheating can't resist the temptations that vacations offer, and 6 percent of those polled cheat even when they're on vacation with their spouses. Even though cheating husbands are more likely to take their mistresses on vacation than their wives, married women on girlcation with their friends are more likely to cheat than their male counterparts.

There must be something about the combination of the sun, the alcohol and the liberty of not having to listen to the sound of the man you've been with for years do his nightly, half-hour-long body-scratching routine. Our advice: If you can't keep it in your pants, maybe you should make yourself the designated driver / map reader. Or take your girlfriends on a whirlwind tour of rural Iowa -- that should shrink anyone's libido.

Marcos V

Bros Before Hoes: John Lennon's "Balancing Lesson"

Bros Before Hoes: John Lennon's "Balancing Lesson"

·         Better Man in brief ...

·         -Keep your girlfriend time and your guy time separate at all costs.

·         -Don't abuse your friendships with selfish demands.

·         -Schedule time to get away from her and party with the guys.

"If you're going to sow some oats, try not to get kicked out of a nightclub wearing a feminine hygiene product on your forehead, as Lennon did in L.A."

In his all-too-brief 40 years, John Lennon taught the world countless lessons. In addition to being a world-class singer, songwriter and musician, Lennon was also a published author, artist, political activist and champion of world peace. So it stands to reason that he might know a bit about interpersonal relations, right?

Well, sort of.

Lennon was indeed the first Beatle to marry and the first Beatle to become a father; on the flip-side, John was also the first Beatle to divorce and the first Beatle to re-marry. But even after he found his soul-mate in second wife Yoko Ono, there were problems.

As we celebrate the year in which John Lennon would have turned 70, let's take a peek at a few lessons we can learn from his life about how to balance friendships and a relationship.

1- Keep Her Away From Guy Group Activities

When Lennon and Yoko Ono became an item in 1968, it was the beginning of not only a romantic relationship, but something of a symbiotic one. Yoko introduced John to the world of avant-garde art, and -- God help us -- Lennon proceeded to get Yoko involved in pop music. (How many of you know that Yoko sang on The Beatles' White Album? Yes, it's true.)

During Beatles recording sessions in 1969, Ono was so involved that she became John's constant companion in the studio, which severely displeased the other Beatles, particularly when she began offering musical advice. Even though some of Lennon's most cutting-edge music was recorded and released during the "early Yoko" era -- including "I Want You (She's So Heavy)," "Come Together" and "Revolution" -- the damage to the group's camaraderie was evident. (It was not for nothing that Paul McCartney reportedly stared down Yoko in the studio as he sang "Get back to where you once belonged," as John once told an interviewer.)

So guys, the lesson to be learned here is this: If you're thinking of inviting your girl to that Friday night poker game with the boys -- think again.

2- Regularly Schedule "Guy Time"

By 1973, Lennon and Ono were tired of the constant togetherness and had become estranged, which led to Lennon leaving the couple's NYC digs (at Ono's request) and taking up residence in Los Angeles with music industry assistant May Pang. In later years, Lennon referred to this period in his life as "The Lost Weekend," as he partied hard with pals like fellow musicians Keith Moon, Harry Nilsson, Micky Dolenz and Ringo Starr.

While the stories of Lennon's misbehavior in L.A. during this period were quickly infamous, Yoko believed she was saving their relationship by allowing John to sow some wild oats with friends. (A tip: If you're going to sow some oats, try not to get kicked out of a nightclub wearing a feminine hygiene product on your forehead, as Lennon did in L.A.)

FYI: Scheduling "guy time" on a regular basis with your pals -- whether it be watching the ball game, downing a few at the local watering hole or whatever -- lessens the chances that you'll go bonkers during a night on the town. (Not purchasing feminine hygiene products may help in that regard, as well.)

In a rush to get the single into the shops, Lennon dragged McCartney into the studio and insisted they record the song as a duet."

3- Don't Neglect Your Prior Commitments

John Lennon's relationship with Yoko Ono so consumed him that his relations with the other three quarters of the Fab Four (along with most other people) were crumbling by 1969. John and Yoko were releasing experimental albums together (a gold star for anyone who can sit through one of these without running from the room screaming), campaigning for peace together and getting busted together -- you know, the normal boy/girl stuff.

Meanwhile, John's Beatle buddies were patiently awaiting his return to the fold, but at a band meeting in 1969, when Paul McCartney brought up ideas for the next Beatles project, Lennon shot back, "I think you're daft. I want a divorce." This statement effectively brought an end to the band, although the split wasn't made official until the following year. This series of events began the "Yoko broke up the Beatles" furor that continues to this day.

The lesson here (aside from the fact that no one wants to hear the messy musical experiments you and your girlfriend are making) is that it does no one any good if you drop all your commitments, plans and friends just to be with your girl. Everyone will resent you, you'll get ticked off at them and in the end there's a good chance you'll end up resenting her for your own poor choices.

4- Don't Take Your Friends For Granted

In 1969, John penned an autobiographical tune about his wedding to Yoko, their honeymoon and some of their publicity shenanigans to promote peace, titled "The Ballad of John and Yoko." Her wanted to record it with the other Beatles ASAP, but George and Ringo were both out of town and unavailable. Did that stop John? Nope. In a rush to get the single into the shops, Lennon dragged McCartney into the studio and insisted they record the song as a duet (although it was billed as a Beatles record).

Even though the result was the Beatles' final #1 single in England, George and Ringo had to have felt someone slighted by John's me-first actions. In what must have seemed like the ultimate in-your-face move, Yoko Ono appeared with the entire band on the photo that graced the 45's picture sleeve. So let's see: two of the people pictured didn't even play on the song, and they were stuck posing with someone who wasn't in the band at all and three quarters of the band didn't like. Ugh.

The key lesson to take way from this scenario is: never take your friends for granted; again, you'll just be asking for resentment and hurt feelings.

5- Hold Your Tongue

Let's let John have the last word, with the now-famous lyrics from his 1970 tune, "God":

"I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me [...] Yoko and me. And that's reality. The dream is over."

As my dear ol’ dad once said, "If you can't say something nice, then shut the f*ck up." This particularly holds true if you're saying something that could end up causing repercussions later.

John M. Borack

Nice Guys Know How to Attract Women But Insecure Nice Guys Dont

The one thing that all "Nice Guys" who think women don't like "Nice Guys" have in common is a lack of high self esteem and insecurity around women.

In fact many of them say they are nice guys simply because it sounds nice. You can feel sorry for the nice guys because he tries so hard and things just dont seem to go his way.

Yet if we called these guys what they really are insecure guy it would be much harder to feel any sympathy for them and most people would simply tell them to do something about it.

I have taken the time to explain the difference between a "nice guy" and a "insecure guy" so that you insecure guys can know who you are as I am sure most guys are off doing nice things right now instead of worrying about how to get a woman to like him.

A Nice Guy is Someone Who:

• Helps Old Ladies
• Volunteers
• Helps Children
• Helps His Family

If you notice a real nice guy doesn't do anything for a woman who he finds attractive because she doesn't need help he treats her the same way he treats everyone else who is fully capable of helping themselves.

In fact most of the people he does help he does so for the reward of helping a person in need not for the sexual favors that it might bring.

An Insecure "Nice Guy" is someone who:

• Buys women he just met expensive dinners and gifts
• Seeks approval of women
• Allows women to walk all over him
• Does whatever a woman ask him
• Wants women to approach him or wait forever till he gets the courage to ask

Everything the insecure nice guy does is for women that he finds attractive, rarely might he fall into the "Nice Guy" category but even then he expects women to find that attractive and that's the main reason why he does it rather than the experience itself.

He might say something like you know I could've been a Wall Street Power Broker and make a lot of money but I chose to be a school teacher and women just don't seem to care.

If you really are a nice guy and you are having trouble attracting women perhaps it is because you like the sound of nice guy better than that of insecure guy. Now if you want to attract women you can learn how or continue to be an Insecure Nice Guy and continue to be taken advantage of.

MARRIAGE & FACEBOOK?

A Little FACEBOOK Love Never Hurt Nobody!

Although officially Facebook is not an online dating site, many consider it to be one in disguise. Thousands of people looking for romance click on other's profiles to see if they're cute, or if they have similar interests that might spark a relationship. As one senior wrote, "Before, the point when a relationship went from casual to serious was meeting the parents. Now it's announcing your relationship on your Facebook profile." Another senior writes that that the most painful part of a breakup is when you click on your ex's profile and see that he/she has changed their entry in the Relationship status to "single".

I can hear lots of you saying, "So? What's wrong with that?"

The answer is, plenty. And although even I think that it's way too late to put the Facebook dating genie back in the bottle, there are some things to think about that should make you go hmm when you consider developing a serious relationship via Facebook.

Most people decide that someone on Facebook interests them because of their profile. What exactly does the Facebook profile tell you? Well, it tells you the person's university, their major, their age, their hobbies and interests, favorite movie, books, music, etc. And lots of people think that common profile elements are a strong reason to begin cultivating a relationship.

Hmm.

That means that, when you go out with your Facebook date, you feel as though you already know them. You have lots to talk about, because you have common interests. The relationship develops more and more and you become deeply involved, to the point where you begin to think you might actually have found your real, true soul mate.

Just one problem: You don't know very much about this person.

You know that you have common interests, hobbies, likes and dislikes. But a deep, lifelong relationship cannot be based on the fact that you both love Fall Out Boy, your favorite novel is The Firm and you've both seen The Titanic 15 times. It's not enough to know that you both enjoy foosball and love mango flavored ice cream. There are other, deeper and far more fundamental issues that you need to explore before you can make any kind of long-term decisions.

Hmm.

So how do you figure out if the person you're dating is really the right one for you? It's actually somewhat easier than you think. There are four deal-breakers, four non-negotiable factors in finding your soul mate. If you can find someone with all four, it's highly likely that you've found your life partner, with whom you can build a relationship that will last. And no, these four do not appear anywhere on Facebook.

Look for someone who:

1)   Has a Higher Commitment
Before you decide to marry someone, make sure that they are fully committed to some kind of objective moral and ethical standard. Whether we realize it or not, everyone has some kind of core value that is central to their personality. And when push comes to shove, that value is going to be the most important thing in the world to that person.

Let's take a couple named Jeff and Mindy, who connected through Facebook and are seriously considering becoming engaged. Jeff's core value is adventure, and he'll do almost anything for a thrill. When he and Mindy start dating he happens to be volunteering in the local ER four times a week. Mindy really admires this and thinks that Jeff is amazing. Well, Mindy, he might be amazing, but he's in the ER because he loves adventure. His adventurous streak happens to be expressing itself in a kind way - but what if that changes all of the sudden? He might begin to do things for adventure that Mindy thinks are wrong, or even immoral. Then what's she going to do?

That's why finding out the other person's core value is so important.

So, how do you figure it out? It's pretty simple. No matter what a person's core value is, you'll see him or her constantly sacrificing for it. So if Jeff's core value is adventure, he might risk an accident in order to speed through an intersection, or come late to work because he was following a police chase. By following him closely, Mindy will see that Jeff places adventure above other things on his list of priorities.

But if Jeff's core value is goodness, is helping others, then Mindy will see him sacrifice for that. He'll come late to work because he helped an old lady home with her groceries; he'll let the other guy cross the intersection first even though it was his turn.

So the first deal-breaker is to make sure that the person you're thinking of marrying is deeply committed to a higher set of values that you appreciate.

2)   Treats Others Courteously
You obviously want to marry someone who is going to treat you well. But how can you tell? This is even easier than #1. When you're with this person, pay attention to how they treat other people whom they're not trying to charm. Do they say thank you to people like gas station attendants and bank tellers? Are they courteous to waiters and ushers? Or do they let the parking attendant have it for taking a bit too long to bring the car? Do they drive aggressively, as though they own the road? Ask yourself these questions and similar ones, and take note of the answers - because these characteristics are going to come out down the line. They show the real persona - the one you'll discover after you're married.

3)   Has Good Communication Skills
In other words, communication skills (something difficult to appreciate over the Internet!). Make sure that you are both on the same wavelength, so that you don't enter a relationship that is replete with frequent disagreements that later turn out to be misunderstandings. You don't need that headache. Although minor misunderstandings can always occur, check to make sure that they are relatively infrequent - because after marriage, arguments can absolutely ruin the atmosphere in the house.

4) Is Attractive to You
Physical attraction is the one, essential aspect of marriage that you might think Facebook portrays accurately. Think again. People are not always the same in real life as they are in the photos on their page. While sometimes the person may be much better looking in life than in a still, many times it works the opposite way. If this happens, and you find yourself disappointed in your date's physical appearance, don't make any premature decisions. Often, as a relationship develops, the person's looks may "grow" on you, and you will find them very attractive. This is especially true when the relationship is based on these four factors.

So as you're clicking around, keep these four deal breakers in mind. They are the key to finding and building a beautiful, warm loving relationship that will outlast any interest or hobby -even Fall Out Boy -and even Facebook.

Is ROMANCE Dead?

Is ROMANCE Dead?

The pleasures of receiving flowers took an interesting turn. Straight into the Romance Department. How much we seem to miss it, and how little we seem to encounter it.

Romance, wherefore art thou?
Sex? We can find that. Friends with benefits? That, too.
But romance? What is it, exactly? Why does it seem so elusive? Are our expectations skewed? Is it unrealistic to anticipate romantic gestures in our harried, crazy stressful lives when we have so many other things to worry about?
Have men discarded the notion that women want it? Or do they no longer believe that romance is required – or worse – that it matters?

Romance without love?
What do you picture when you hear the word romance? Is love always involved? Do you imagine postcard versions of reality, complete with yourself stepping into scenes with candlelight and champagne, or strolling hand-in-hand along the beach at sunset? Do you require Venetian canals? Mountain vistas?

Or is it as simple – and deceptive – as roses delivered at the door?

·Is romance an indication of love or that it’s brewing?
·Do you assume it will lead to marriage? Does it bring us closer, or is it a smoke screen? A false god?
·Can it be enjoyed without assumptions – a simmering sign of affection that needs no Cupid’s arrow in the mix?

Defining Romance
According to Random House Dictionary (on Dictionary.com), romantic means:
. . . displaying or expressing love or strong affection; ardent, passionate, fervent; fanciful, impractical, unrealistic (as in ideas); characterized by a preoccupation with love or by the idealizing of love or one’s beloved.

Now there’s conflicting information for you. Love? Yes. And idealism, along with the glossing over of reality which is implied.  Passion? We’ve got that as well. And a notion that romance is inherently impractical.
Or is it sustaining romance that is impractical?

Love without romance
How many of us have loved – or still do – men and women who don’t have a romantic bone in their bodies? They have good hearts, a clear understanding of what it is to partner with another person, and they remain loyal, caring, and even passionate in a relationship. We love them for who we see (and wish to see); we love them for how they are with us (on good days and bad); we love them with or without romance – though we wouldn’t mind an inkling of it now and then.

Can love without romance work? We know it can.
So why do we miss the romance when it’s gone? Why do we long for it, if we never had it?

Sex – and then what?
Ever had a steamy relationship that had little to do with love, and everything to do with adventure and eroticism? What about an affair that involves human connection when you needed it, or simply good sex?

Romance? We might enjoy its spin around the dance floor, but we know we can blossom even without it.

·If it’s sex without love, are we less likely to crave the romantic?
·If passion can stand alone, does it require other gestures?
·If we have great sex with a little romance thrown in, do we mistake it for love?
·Does it add to our confusion between sex and lovemaking?

Must marriage mean the death of romance?
For more than 10 years, I got up early, made my coffee, began work, and dealt with children. If my husband was in town, I brewed his coffee just before the hour he preferred to rise. I added milk the way he liked it, set the cup by his side of the bed, then woke him gently.

Every morning he was there.
I recall my older son making me a cup of coffee in the morning a few times. He was eight or nine I think. But not my husband. Never my husband.
Is time the enemy of romance? Or is it routine? Or boredom? Or fatigue? Is marriage doomed to shed its romantic nooks and crannies -  if they ever existed – as partnership becomes about the marital unit, as love changes shape, as priorities shift?

What do you consider romantic?
When love is long term, perhaps we settle into rhythms that we cease to question.

If you’re fortunate, flowers or love notes give way to extra sleep on the weekend because the baby’s been keeping you up. To taking the kids out so you can have an hour of quiet. To surprising you with a walk together through your favorite neighborhood. To bringing home pizza so there’s no need to cook. And a little more energy for making love.

Like any woman, I may be dazzled by flowers arriving unexpectedly, but I don’t need them. What I do need are signs that I am appreciated. Treasured. The occasional gesture.

Is that idealistic and unrealistic?

Real life, real romance
It’s easy to be romantically inclined when you’re on vacation, removed from the stresses of daily duties.

But in our real lives, our everyday mess and chaos, is it unrealistic to think that romance is around the next corner? Or in some unanticipated act from your spouse of twenty years?

I’ve known passion without romance (it’s certainly fulfilling), romance without passion (also viable), and something like marriage that lacked in both departments, foreshadowing a lifestyle missing its music. Still, other elements brought about its inevitable end.

Friendship? Respect? Values?
When it comes to love, three little words are never enough. They help, but they’re words. Actions speak louder than words, don’t they?

When it comes to love, I believe that friendship, respect, and common values provide the support system to sustain the partnership. But without passion or romance, even that may not be enough.

Romance may take a variety of forms; its presence is a reflection of feeling and appreciation. Its absence, a reflection of elements that bear examining.

If romance matters to you, however it is demonstrated, better to acknowledge it sooner rather than later. And if it’s on the wane, might we rekindle the spark by leading with our example?

PRE-NUPTIAL AGREEMENTS. Good or Bad?

PRE-NUPTIAL AGREEMENTS. 

Good or Bad?

Whilly Bermudez - Host / Commentator 

Americans are divided in their opinions but I thought it was a good topic to start 2011. Let’s be serious, the thought of even contemplating having to execute a Pre-nup is only for those few with considerable personal wealth. As you will see from the study and the research very few people ever get to worry about it. So please don’t fight with your significant other just to participate in this discussion ;)  

I can identify with both sides of the argument. However, being a single man I have had the good fortune or not to see how trifling and devious some women can be. Real gold diggers and opportunists do really lurk in the shadows. So you have to be on guard and make wise decisions. 

When it comes to celebrities, I feel that the person with the God given talent (Musician, Athlete, Model, Entrepreneur, etc.) is the only reason why there is even a financial fortune to begin with so I am not in favor of having to give the other person these obscene amounts of money. I just don’t think it’s fair.

Regardless, of my opinion or yours let’s look at some numbers & data:

While over one-fourth (28%) of Americans say that prenuptial agreements make smart financial sense for anyone getting married, another fourth (25%) think such agreements are for the rich and famous, not "regular" people. One in five (19%) believes in true love and feels that a prenup is never needed when the two people involved really love each other. Another fifteen percent are convinced that a prenuptial agreement dooms a marriage to failure from the start, and another twelve percent find such contracts a good idea in general, but would feel too uncomfortable to bring them up in their own relationship. Another one in five (18%) says none of these statements best describes their attitudes toward prenups.

·         Men are the shyer sex: they tend to be less comfortable than women with the subject of prenups. While ten percent of women say they see a prenup as a good idea but would be uncomfortable to bring up the subject in their own relationship, fifteen percent of men would feel uncomfortable. 

·         Households with children view prenuptial agreement with more trepidation than do those without children. Americans who live in households with children are significantly less likely than those without kids (22% vs. 32%) to believe that prenups make smart financial sense. Conversely, Americans who have kids are significantly more likely than others to believe that prenuptial agreements doom a marriage to fail (20% vs. 12%). 

·         Likewise, divorcees embrace a more cynical approach to traditional marriage and are more open to the idea of a prenuptial agreement than the rest of the population. While fewer than one in ten (8%) divorced Americans feels that a prenup is unnecessary if two people really love each other, fully one in five (20%) married Americans feel the same. Furthermore, divorcees view a prenuptial agreement as a financial matter much more often than non-divorcees: one-half (49%) of divorced Americans believe that prenuptial agreements make financial sense, while just one in five (21%) married Americans feel the same.

Keeping one's own assets is the greatest benefit of a prenuptial agreement. More than four in five (45%) Americans see the biggest benefit of a prenuptial agreement as that one can keep one's fair share of assets brought into the marriage or earned during the marriage. One in five (18%) believes a prenup would make a divorce shorter, easier, and less costly. Another twelve percent think of the children first: they see protection of the best interest of the children as the biggest benefit of a prenuptial agreement. Three percent mention some other benefit, while only one percent sees getting enough of their spouse's assets earned during their marriage as the biggest benefit of a prenup agreement. One in five (21%) sees no benefit in a prenuptial agreement.

·         Americans with children are significantly less likely than those without children to see the benefit in a prenuptial agreement. More than one in four (27%) Americans with children see no benefit in a prenup, while just one in five (19%) Americans with no children fail to see a benefit. Likewise, two in five (40%) Americans with children believe the biggest benefit of a prenuptial agreement is keeping one's own assets, while one-half (48%) of Americans without children feel the same. 

·         Divorced Americans are open to a prenuptial agreement because of financial considerations. One-half (53%) of divorced Americans view the capability to protect assets brought into the marriage as the primary benefit of a prenuptial agreement, while only two in five (41%) of married Americans feel the same.

Single Americans seem open to the idea of pre-nuptial agreements. One in ten (9%) unmarried Americans say they would never get married/remarried without a prenuptial contract. While one-fourth (24%) of unmarried Americans would not ask for a prenuptial agreement, they would consider it if their significant other wanted it. Another one in five (22%) would ask their significant other for a prenup, but would still marry him or her without one. One in five (18%) would want a prenuptial agreement if they were to marry someone with a lot more or a lot less money than they themselves had. One-fourth (27%) is opposed to prenuptial agreements and would never sign one before they married.

·         Men boldly go where women do not. More unmarried men (27%) than unmarried women (17%) say they would ask their significant other for a prenuptial agreement, but they would still get married without one. One-third (32%) of women say they would never sign a prenup before they married, while only one in five (21%) men think so.

·         American parents are more idealistic than are Americans without children. One in three (33%) unmarried parents would never sign a prenuptial agreement before getting married, while just one in four (25%) single Americans without children echo those sentiments. It follows that significantly more Americans without children (11%) would never get married without a prenuptial agreement than those with children (5%). 

·         Divorced Americans place enormous value on prenuptial agreements in their own life - significantly more than Americans who have never been married. One in five (17%) divorced Americans say they would never get remarried without a prenuptial while very few (6%) Americans who have never been married report that they would never get married without a prenuptial agreement. Divorcees are less likely than those who have never been married to say that they would ask their significant other to consider a prenuptial agreement but would marry them without it (16% vs. 26%) and to say that they would never ask for a prenuptial agreement, but would consider one if their significant other wanted it (17% vs. 27%). Moreover, divorcees are less likely than those who have never been married to adamantly oppose ever signing a prenuptial agreement: one in five (19%) divorced Americans would never sign a prenuptial agreement, while one in four (26%) of those never married feel the same.

Happy New Year!

WHILLY BERMUDEZ

About the Study: Harris Interactive conducted a QuickQuery^SM online omnibus study on behalf of Lawyers.com. A sample of 2,731 adults age 18 or older was interviewed online.

To ensure a reliable and accurate representation of the total online population, completed interviews were weighted to known proportions for age, geographic region, and race. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 1.9%.